tihv<^vy  of  Che  t:heolo0ical  ^^mxnavy 

PRINCETON  •  NEW  JERSEY 


•S^D* 


BV  812  .H33 

Harrison,  William  Pope,  183C 

-1895. 
Theophilus  Walton 


HEOPHILUS   WALTON; 


OB, 


^t  Slajtsts  of  Cnitfe 
A  REPLY 


TO 


THEODOSIA  ERNEST. 

BY 

A  MEMBER  OF  THE  ALABAMA  CONFERENCE. 


"Prove  all  things;  hold  fast  that  which  is  good."— PAUL. 


PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  AUTHOR  BY  STEVENSON  &  OWEN. 
1858. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1858,  by 

WILLIAM  P.  HARRISON, 

In  the  District  Court  of  the  United  States  for  the  Middle  District  of  Tennessee. 


STEREOTYPED   AND  PRINTED  BY  A.   A.   STITT, 
SOUTHERN  METHODIST  PUBLISHING  HOUSE,   NASHVILLE,    TENN. 


onteid^. 


CHAPTER  L— Love  and  Marriage 5 

CHAPTER  II.— The  Great  Secret 8 

CHAPTER  III.— The  Lovers 13 

CHAPTER  IV.— The  Afflictiou  of  Joseph 15 

CHAPTER  v.— The  Revival  and  its  Fruits 22 

CHAPTER  VL— Consistency  is  a  Jewel 27 

CHAPTER  VIL— The  Doubt  removed 84 

The  word  ''immerse"  not  in  the  Bible — The  reasons  given  by  Baptists 
contradicted  by  Baptist  writers — The  Babel  of  Baptist  Bible  revi- 
sion overthrown  by  its  own  builders 43 

CHAPTER  VIIL— Job  and  his  Comforters 70 

CHAPTER  IX.— Carrie  Mason's  Review  o£  "  Theodosia  Ernest".     79 


3^^^ttii  (BvtnxM^ 


Trial  of  the  Baptist  canons  of  criticism,  as  laid  down  by  Dr.  Gale, 
Dr.  Carson,  Dr.  Richard  Fuller,  and  other  eminent  Baptists:  the 
result,  a  reduction  to  absurdity  of  Baptist  theory,  by  proving  them 

all  to  be  enemies  of  Christ 93 

CHAPTER  X.— The  Day  of  Trial 120 

CHAPTER  XL— New  Troubles  in  the  Cabinet 129 

CHAPTER  XIL— The  Interview  and  its  Result 135 

CHAPTER  XIIL— Carrie  Mason's  Revic^^,  continued 140 


IV  CONTENTS. 

The  Gi'eek  words  Bapto  and  Baptidzo  examined — their  classical  and 
Scriptural  use — More  Baptist  testimony:  Dr.  Fuller,  Dr.  Carson, 

Dr.  Gale,  and  Dr.  Cox 149 

CHAPTER  XIV.— A  Test  Question 181 

CHx\PTER  XV.— Carrie  Mason's  Review,  continued 185 

New  Testament  baptisms  examined — Why  was  Christ  baptized  ? — How 

was  Christ  baptized? — More  light — Mr.  Battle  in  the  field 197 

CHAPTER  XVL— Events  of  the  Following  Day 229 

CHAPTER  XVIL— A  Struggle  and  a  Victory 235 

CHAPTER  XVIIL— Carrie  Mason's  Review,  concluded 239 


$xi\\x  (^ttxxxxx^ 


New  Testament  baptisms,  continued — No  proof  of  immersion  in  any 
case 247 

History  of  the  ordinance — its  early  corruptions — Value  of  the  Fathers' 
testimony — Origin  of  Baptist  immersion 283 

^t)^t\Xi\X    i&Xt\XX\Xi^. 

Controversy  on  the  mode  (^f  baptism — The  evidence  from  the  classics 
and  other  sources  examined — Mr.  Battle  and  Mr.  Mason — "AVhen 
Greek  meets  Greek,  then  comes  the  tug  of  war" — Trial  of  Mrs.  Wil- 
liams for  the  crime  of  partaking  of  the  Lord's  Supper  with  the 
Lord's  people — Alexander  Battle  and  others  for  the  prosecution ; 
Richard  Barbour  for  the  defence 328 

CHAPTER  XIX.— The  Trial 347 

Is  infant  baptism  of  God  or  of  men? — "To  the  law  and  to  the  testi- 
mony"   365 

CHAPTER  XX.— The  Retrospect 407 


THEOPHILUS    WALTON; 


OR. 


THE   MAJESTY   OF   TRUTH. 


CHAPTER    I. 

LOVE    AND     MARRIAGE. 

The  human  heart  can  never  be  happy  in  itself.  To 
lovB;  with  all  the  ardor  of  our  nature,  some  object,  whom 
we  suppose  worthy  of  affection,  is  as  necessary  to  our 
healthful  being  as  the  light  of  heaven  to  the  plant,  or  water 
to  the  fishes  of  the  sea.  Inertia  is  not  a  natural  property  of 
the  heart's  emotions ;  they  are  active  from  the  first  hours  of 
childhood,  when  the  vast  world  of  goodness  and  greatness 
is  found  in  a  mother's  eye,  to  the  last  moments  when  the 
trembling  pilgrim  halts  at  the  entrance  of  the  dark  valley, 
and  embraces  for  the  last  time  the  loved  ones  to  be  left 
behind  him.  Whether  the  warm,  generous  heart  of  friend- 
ship, or  the  trusting  heart  of  a  life-long  companionship,  be 
the  attracting  centre  of  our  affections,  each  day  that  passes 
brings  with  it  proofs  of  friendship,  or  evidences  of  holy 
love,  which,  as  fuel  to  the  fire,  keep  the  flame  ever  burning 
on  the  altar  of  the  heart. 

(5) 


6  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

Next  in  importance,  tlien,  to  the  settlement  of  religioua 
principle,  and  the  cultivation  of  the  moral  powers,  is  the  selec- 
tion of  a  companion  for  life — a  mirror  of  our  own  soul,  into 
which  we  may  always  look,  and  see  a  true  and  faithful  like- 
ness there ;  a  heart  which  will  be  ever  ready  to  defend  us, 
when  the  world  shall  persecute ;  ready  to  sympathize  with 
and  comfort  us,  when  others  avoid  or  neglect;  which,  like 
the  vine,  shall  encircle  us,  and  cling  the  closer  to  our  for- 
tunes, when  the  rude  storm  shall  threaten  to  overthrow  and 
destroy.  Selected  in  wisdom,  nurtured  with  care,  this  young 
heart  becomes  a  part  of  our  existence,  and  in  the  genial 
sunshine  of  affection  grows  up  to  maturity,  seeking  no 
higher  joy  than  that  which  springs  from  mutual  happiness 
and  contentment;  and  when,  at  last,  the  travel  through 
this  wilderness  is  passed,  longs  to  be  reunited  on  the  other 
shore,  in  the  Eden  of  the  blessed. 

Sustaining  the  relation  of  arbiter,  and,  to  a  considerable 
extent,  disposer  of  human  fortunes  in  time  and  eternity,  we 
need  not  wonder  at  the  interest  everywhere  excited  by  the 
subject  of  marriage.  The  old  and  the  young  feel  a  deep 
concern  in  every  pair  which  joins  the  married  ranks.  The 
gayety  of  the  festival  which  celebrates  this  union  of  hearts, 
removes  not  the  anxious  thoughts  of  the  wise  and  prudent. 
They  feel  that  a  momentous  question  has  been  decided ;  one 
upon  which  depend  the  welfare  of  the  couple  themselves, 
and  the  peace  of  society  at  large.  The  young,  who  seldom 
look  upon  the  gloomy  side  of  the  path  of  life,  find  in  their 
own  hearts  a  response  to  the  motives  which  actuate  the 
newly-married  couple;  and  thus  all  are  interested  in  the 
choice.  Perverted  by  sensual  passion,  or  rendered  the  agent 
of  grovelling  avarice,  the  institution  ordained  and  blessed  of 
God  in  the  time  of  man's  innocency,  is  changed  from  a 
general  good  into  a  hideous  curse.  The  union  of  kindred 
hearts  is  recorded  in  heaven ;  and  the  dews  of  Hermon  shall 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  7 

descend^  together  with  the  early  and  the  latter  rain,  to 
refresh  and  invigorate  the  fruitful  soil.  But  the  sordid  bar- 
ter in  which  wealth,  beauty,  and  passion  are  the  commodi- 
ties exchanged,  is  an  outrage  perpetrated  against  the  laws 
of  God  and  the  interests  of  the  human  race. 

It  is  our  purpose,  courteous  reader,  to  present  you  with  a 
few  pages  from  the  book  of  real  life.  We  would  speak  then 
with  the  earnestness  of  the  historian,  and  the  confidence  of 
a  friend.  We  would  fasten  a  buoy  over  the  breakers  which 
have  perilled  the  happiness  of  trusting  voyagers,  and  erect  a 
lighthouse  on  the  shore,  to  protect  others  from  danger. 
The  voice  of  warning  comes  ever  too  late  to  the  wrecked ; 
but  a  word  fitly  spoken  shall  be,  to  the  prudent,  as  apples  of 
gold,  set  in  pictures  of  silver. 


THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 


CHAPTER    II. 


THE    GREAT    SECRET. 


^^  I  HAVE  been  seeking  a  convenient  opportunity  for 
some  time  past  to  relieve  my  mind  from  anxiety,  and  I  see 
no  reason  wliy  I  may  not  do  so  at  the  present  moment. 
Pardon  my  frankness,  Miss  Mary,  but  tlie  interest  I  feel  in 
the  subject  is  my  excuse  for  the  liberty  I  take.  Will  you 
promise  to  give  me  a  candid  answer  to  my  question  ?" 

"  Most  assuredly,  Mr.  Walton.  If  I  can  be  the  means 
of  relieving  you  from  anxiety  of  any  sort,  I  will  not  hesitate 
to  do  so.^' 

"  Your  kindness  emboldens  me.  Miss  Mary,  and  yet  I 
feel  some  embarrassment  in  approaching  the  subject.  You 
have  no  doubt  noticed  my  attention  to  you  for  some  time, 
and  the  pleasure  which  I  have  derived  from  your  society. 
Permit  me  to  ask  what  construction  you  have  placed  upon 
my  conduct?" 

"  Indeed !  and  that  is  the  question  which  embarrasses 
you  so  much  ?" 

'^  Only  in  part.  Miss  Mary.  It  leads  to  another  of  still 
greater  importance.  Will  you  not  gratify  me  with  an 
answer  ?'^ 

''  1  have  promised  to  do  all  I  can  to  relieve  your  anxiety, 
but  yet  I  am  only  under  obligation  to  answer  one  question." 

"Very  good,  Miss  Mary;    answer  the  one  I  have  just 


THE    MAJESTY    OE    TRUTH.  9 

asked,  and  I  will  throw  myself  upon  your  generosity  for 
further  information/' 

^'  That  will  be  taking  rather  an  advantage  of  me ;  but  as 
I  have  promised  to  be  just,  we  will  settle  the  question  of 
generosity  afterward.  Well,  then,  Mr.  Walton,  I  have 
attributed  your  attention  to  me  only  to  sincere  friendship/' 

'^  Is  that  all,  Mary  ?  Have  you  seen  nothing  to  convince 
you  that  I  entertain  something  more  than  mere  friendship 
for  you  ?" 

^'  I  have  seen  nothing  inconsistent  with  true  friendship, 
Mr.  Walton.'' 

^^  That  may  be  very  true,  Mary,  and  yet " 

''  You  may  not  possess  that  friendship." 

^'  0  no !  I  meant  to  say,  that  I  might  have  manifested 
a  higher  and  dearer  feeling,  Mary " 

^*  Without  designing  to  do  so,  Mr.  Walton.  I  understand 
you." 

'^No,  Mary;  you  wish  to  tease  me.  Don't  you  believe 
that  I  love  you  ?" 

'^  Now,  Mr.  Walton,  that  is  not  a  fair  question.  I  cannot 
answer  it." 

"  Let  me  answer  it  for  you  then.  I  know  that  you  have 
too  much  perception  not  to  see  it,  for  I  do  ardently,  passion- 
ately love  you.  Mary,  answer  me  :  is  your  heart  still  free, 
unengaged  ?" 

'^  No,  Mr.  Walton,  it  is  not.     I  am  in  love." 

"  You  are  !  with  whom  ?  where  does  he  live  ?  Who  and 
what  is  my  rival  ?" 

''  Do  not  be  excited,  Mr.  Walton.  Your  questions  multi- 
ply too  fast.     Shall  I  describe  him  ?" 

'^  By  all  means.  Tell  me  who  he  is,  as  well  as  what  he  is. 
Is  there  no  chance  to  displace  him  ?" 

^'None.     But  I  cannot  promise   to  tell  you  who  he  is. 

But  I  will  describe  him.     Pie  is  a  young  man " 

1* 


10  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

'^  Of  course/' 

'^  Handsome,  intelligent,  and  moral.  If  lie  has  faults^ 
they  are  unknown  to  lae." 

"A  fine  commencement  for  a  nonpareil .  picture.  Miss 
Mary.     Is  it  not  flattered  V 

^^Not  in  the  least,  I  think.  His  features  are  regular; 
black  hair;  a  quick,  dark  eye;  matchless  mouth;  and  a 
commanding  appearance,  together  with  a  winriing  address. 
He  is  an  educated  man,  promises  to  be  known  in  the  world, 
and  is  quite  a  general  favorite. '^ 

^^And  he  has  told  you  that  he  loves  you  ?" 

^^  He  has.'' 

"  Recently  V' 

^'  Not  very  long  since." 

^^And  you  are  engaged  to  him  ?" 

^'Not  exactly;  but  I  love  him." 

"  0,  Mary !  why  did  you  not  tell  me  this  before  ?" 

^'  Because  you  did  not  ask  me." 

^'  It  would  have  pained  my  heart,  but  still,  by  this  time,  I 
might  have  learned  to  repress  my  rising  hopes.  I  might 
have  learned  to  yield  to  your  wishes,  and  consult  your  good 
in  rejecting  me.  But  now,  Mary,  I  shall  hate  that  hand- 
some rival,  and  the  remembrance  of  his  happiness  will 
imbitter  my  days.  Mine  has  been  a  pleasant  dream — a 
dream  of  many  years  of  joy  in  your  society.  Alas,  Mary ! 
why  did  you  not  awake  me  before  this  ?  Why  have  you 
suffered  me  to  drink  so  deeply  the  cup  of  delusion  ?" 

^'  If  I  have  offended  you,  Mr.  Walton,  I  am  sorry. 
Nothing  was  farther  from  my  intention,  I  assure  you.  I  do 
esteem  you  as  a  friend — I  cannot  say  how  highly.  It  would 
give  me  infinite  pleasure  to  see  you  happy.  But  you  know, 
Mr.  Walton,  the  first  love  is  the  only  love  of  woman." 

'^So  the  poets  say,  Mary." 

'^And  so  you  have  said,  Mr.  Walton.    Have  you  forgotten 


THE     MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  11 

those  fanciful  legends  you  used  to  relate  to  me,  and  your 
opinions  expressed  about  tliem  ?  You  used  to  tliink  that 
lovers  ought  to  grow  up  together,  and  study  each  other's 
disposition,  that  they  might  learn  how  to  promote  each 
other's  happiness.  Have  you  changed  your  views,  Mr. 
Walton  V 

'^No,  Mary;  and  for  that  very  reason  I  am  bold  to  urge 
my  suit.  We  have  known  each  other  from  the  time  we 
were  little  children,  and  you  know  I  used  to  tell  you  years 
ago  that  I  never  could  love  any  one  but  you.^' 

^^  I  remember  that.  But  you  have  been  away  at  college 
for  months  at  a  time,  and  I  have  scarcely  heard  from  you. 
How  could  you  expect  me  to  think  of  you  in  your  absence, 
when  you  hardly  ever  wrote  me  a  line  ?  Attention,  it  is 
said,  is  the  key  to  woman's  affection." 

^^  True,  Mary.  But  recollect  that  when  I  was  at  college 
we  were  not  allowed  to  correspond  with  young  ladies,  unless 
they  were  very  near  relatives.  You  would  not  have  me  to 
violate  the  rules  of  the  college,  would  you  ?" 

^^  Well,  I  think  they  have  no  business  to  make  such  rules. 
It  does  not  concern  the  teachers;  and  I  don't  think  you 
would  have  been  very  culpable  if  you  had  slipped  a  letter 
to  me  occasionall3^'' 

^^  I  grant  it,  Mary.  And  I  ask  a  thousand  pardons  for  my 
negligence.  But  are  you  going  to  cast  me  off  now  for  some 
one  who  loves  you  no  better  than  I  do,  and  one  that  has  not 
perhaps  known  you  so  long  ?'' 

^^  The  young  man  I  speak  of  has  known  me  all  his  life 
nearly,  Mr.  Walton." 

^'  Well,  who  is  he  ?  Tell  me  his  name,  and  I  shall  ask 
you  no  further  questions.'^ 

''  Will  you  promise  not  to  get  angry  with  him,  Mr. 
Walton  ?" 

^'  Yes,  ioYyour  sake,  I  will  treat  him  kindly.     Who  is  he  V* 


12  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

"  I  must  not  tell  you.     Indeed,  I  cannot  tell  you." 
^'Then  you  not  only  reject  me,  Mary,  but  refuse  to  put 
any  confidence  whatever  in  me.     Can  you  treat  me  so  V 

^^  Mr.  Walton  !  I  declare  you  understand  how  to  tease 
one  to  perfection !  I've  a  great  mind  to  tell  you  now,  just 
out  of  spite  V 

"  Well,  Mary,  let  me  hear  it.  I  am  all  attention.'^ 
"  If  you  must  know,  then,  Mr.  Walton,  the  young  gen- 
tleman, who  has  told  me  that  he  loves  me ;  who  has  known 
me  so  long;  who  has  so  often  been  in  my  company;  and  to 
whom  I  am  indebted  for  some  of  the  happiest  hours  I  have 
ever  spent;  whom  I  can't  help  liking,  in  spite  of  every 
thing,  is — yourself!     Are  you  satisfied  now  ?" 

^^  Mary !  Mary  !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Walton,  ^^  why  have 
you  been  teasing  me  so  long?  But  I  won't  quarrel  with 
you.     You  have  made  me  happy  !" 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  13 


CHAPTER    III. 


THE   LOVERS. 


Mary  Ellis  was  the  daughter  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ellis, 
the  pastor  of  the  Baptist  church  in  Maryville.  Amiable  in 
disposition  and  beautiful  in  person,  she  was  admired  and 
beloved  by  all  who  knew  her.  Her  manners  were  polished, 
yet  she  affected  not  the  possession  of  those  so-called  accom- 
plishments, which  frequently  render  ignorance  conspicuous. 
Her  education  was  thorough,  if  not  extensive;  and  her 
strong  common  sense  rendered  her  society  instructive  and 
profitable. 

Theophilus  Walton  was  the  son  of  a  wealthy  farmer.  His 
father's  opportunities  to  acquire  education  in  early  life 
being  exceedingly  limited,  he  had  learned  to  value  the  pos- 
session of  knowledge  by  his  own  deficiencies.  No  pains 
were  spared  to  afford  every  facility  in  behalf  of  his  son. 
Theophilus  was  placed  at  an  early  day  in  a  private  academy 
of  considerable  reputation,  where  he  was  prepared  for  col- 
lege, and  in  due  time  graduated  in  the  literary  department 
of  the  State  University  with  honor. 

The  parents  of  Theophilus  and  Mary  were  originally  from 
one  of  the  older  States,  and  the  friendship  formed  in  their 
youth  continued  uninterrupted  to  the  period  of  which  we 
write.  It  was  very  natural  that  their  children  should  be 
attached  to  each  other,  and  the  growing  fondness  existing 
between  the  young  couple  was  noticed  with  as  much  pride 


14  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

upon  tlie  one  side  as  satisfaction  on  the  other.  Mr.  Ellis, 
though  in  theory  professing  to  disdain  the  pomp  and  show 
of  wealth,  did  nevertheless  feel  no  little  pride  at  the  pros- 
pect of  a  family  connection  with  the  Waltons.  For  this 
exhibition  of  human  nature,  however,  he  felt  fully  justified, 
because  of  the  known  worth  of  the  young  gentleman.  On 
the  other  hand,  although  the  alliance  gave  no  promise  of 
increased  fortune  to  the  family,  the  Waltons  were  sincerely 
attached  to  Mary  Ellis.  Her  quiet,  unobtrusive  manner 
and  her  affectionate  spirit  had  taken  deep  hold  upon  them, 
and  they  felt  it  to  be  scarcely  a  condescension  for  Theophilus 
to  marry  the  daughter  of  a  widely-known  and  esteemed 
minister. 

Thus  every  thing  gave  promise  of  a  speedy  consummation 
of  happiness  to  the  young  couple.  They  looked  forward  to 
the  flowery  paths  of  life,  inviting  them  to  partake  of  its 
rosy  pleasures ;  no  cloud  upon  the  sky,  no  suspected  worm 
in  the  bud  of  promise-^no  anticipated  barrier  to  the  full 
enjoyment  of  domestic  bliss.  But,  alas  !  if  we  could  lift 
the  veil  that  hides  the  future  from  our  eyes,  the  pleasant 
dreams  of  sanguine  youth,  as  well  as  the  vagaries  of  more 
matured  age,  would  be  dispelled.  It  is  well.  A  kind 
Providence  has  shut  out  from  our  view  the  contemplations 
of  events,  which  would  enhance  our  wisdom  only  at  the 
expense  of  our  peace. 

Unknown  trials  await  this  now  happy  pair — trials  which 
will  purge  the  dross  from  the  fine  gold,  and  temper  the 
steel  for  future  usefulness.  We  know  not  the  utmost  of  our 
strength,  until  some  unexpected  emergency  has  called  it 
forth.  And  so  the  heart  knows  not  the  depth  of  its  affec- 
tion, until  some  formidable  evil  attempts  to  overcome  it. 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  15 


CHAPTER    lY. 

THE   AFFLICTION    OF   JOSEPH. 

^^I  WAS  pleased  witli  your  sermon  on  yesterday,  Brother 
Mason/'  said  Mr.  Thomson,  the  pastor  of  the  Presbyterian 
church  in  Maryville,  to  the  Methodist  minister.  '^  I  was  too 
unwell,  from  this  painful  disease  of  the  throat,  to  occupy  my 
own  pulpit,  and  embraced  the  opportunity  to  hear  you 
preach.  I  thought  your  text  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the 
times." 

"I  felt  it  to  be  so,''  replied  Mr.  Mason;  ^'for  many  of 
us  are  obnoxious  to  the  reproofs  of  the  prophet  Amos.  We 
^  trust  in  the  mountain  of  Samaria,'  and  live  too  much  '  at 
ease  in  Zion.'  Although  none  of  us  may  be  found  stretched 
upon  'beds  of  ivory,'  yet  we  'eat  the  lambs  out  of  the 
flock,  and  the  calves  out  of  the  midst  of  the  stall;  chant 
to  the  sound  of  the  viol,  and  invent  to  ourselves  instruments 
of  music  like  David,  and  are  not  grieved  for  the  affliction 
of  Joseph.'     It  is  too  true." 

''  Yes,  indeed,  we  love  to  '  put  far  away  the  evil  day,'  and 
many  '  cause  the  seat  of  violence  to  come  near.'  Men  of 
business  are  absorbed  with  debit  and  credit ;  men  of  leisure 
with  idle  and  sinful  amusement ;  and  really  the  fashionable 
world  seems  to  have  reached  the  height  of  human  folly. 
Grotesque  styles  of  dress  are  'the  rage'  of  the  day;  the 
more  singular  and  absurd  the  fashion,  the  more  acceptable 
to  the  tastes  of  the  many,  it  appears      Zion  languishes,  for 


16  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

it  is  ^  tlie  fashion'  to  complain  of  coldness  and  barrenness  in 
religion." 

^'And  I  am  not  sure,  Brother  Thomson/'  replied  Mr. 
Mason,  "  that  we  are  altogether  innocent  of  responsibility  in 
these  matters.  "We  have  not  delivered  as  faithfully  as  we 
might  have  done,  the  '  whole  counsel  of  God.^  We  have  too 
often  labored  to  please  the  fancy  of  our  hearers,  instead  of 
striving  to  arouse  their  consciences.'' 

^^  That  is  true,"  said  Mr.  Thomson  ;  ^^  and  I  am  also  con- 
vinced that  the  want  of  a  scriptural  catholicity  among  us 
has  tended  to  produce  alienation  among  the  churches,  and 
infidelity  among  the  people  of  the  world.  It  is  true,  we 
may  not  be  required  to  unite  in  all  the  forms  of  doctrine ; 
but  still,  were  we  to  exhibit  more  sensibly  our  unanimity  in 
regard  to  the  essentials  of  religion,  the  combined  influence 
of  Christianity  would  be  much  more  potent." 

^^  I  am  not  aware  of  any  alienation  of  feeling  as  regards 
your  Church  and  mine,"  said  Mr.  Mason;  ''you  know  that 
our  Baptist  friends  are  usually  a  barrier  to  denominational 
harmony  and  Christian  intercourse.  Their  peculiar  tenets 
require  a  system  of  exclusiveness  which,  if  fully  adhered 
to,  Avould  present  the  maximum  of  bigotry.  By  a  '  happy 
inconsistency,'  however,  they  frequently  restrain  their 
anathemas,  and  confine  their  denunciations  of  Pedobaptists 
to  the  baptismal  service  and  the  sacrament  of  the  Supper." 

"  Very  true.  But  you  remarked  a  moment  ago,  that  we, 
as  ministers,  were  at  fault  for  not  deliveriug  the  '  whole 
counsel  of  Grod,'  instead  of  striving  to  entertain  and  please 
our  congregations.  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  we  do 
this  designedly,  that  is,  with  the  intention  of  shirking 
responsibilities — still,  I  confess  your  remark  is  true.  There 
is  still  another  fault,  however,  in  the  ministry  of  our  day,  in 
all  the  churches." 

"And  what  is  that.  Brother  Thomson  ?" 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  17 

"  The  want  of  plainness  in  our  sermons.  We  incline  too 
mucli  to  theory,  and  general  disquisitions  upon  the  gospel, 
whilst  practicoJ  preaching  is  neglected." 

<a  admit  the  fact;  but  still,  is  not  the  reason  found  in 
the  fact  that  practical  preaching  is  not  only  unpalatable  tc 
offenders,  but  has  a  tendency  to  place  the  ministry  in  the 
office  of  public  censors  V 

"  The  very  office  which  they  ought  to  fill  under  the  com- 
mission of  ambassadors  for  Christ." 

^'Yet  you  know  how  dependent  every  preacher  of  the 
gospel  is  upon  the  sympathy  of  his  congregation,  and  when 
we  are,  in  a  great  measure,  cut  off  from  the  warm,  earnest 
prayers  of  spiritual-minded  Christians,  our  own  souls  are  not 
adequately  fed  with  the  word  we  preach.  And  certainly  it 
is  unpleasant  to  be  continually  rebuking  the  sins  of  the  peo- 
ple, unless  we  see  some  signs  of  amendment,  and  feel  that 
the  hearts  of  the  people  acknowledge  their  guilt,  whilst  their 
tongues  may  refuse  the  confession.  If  we  prepare  our  ser-  ' 
mons  ever  so  well,  and  have  them  so  fully  matured  as  to 
leave  no  room  for  improvement,  yet,  without  that  earnest, 
responsive  flow  of  feeling  in  our  hearers  which  is  the  life  of 
preaching,  our  hearts  become  almost  as  cold  as  those  to 
whom  our  message  is  delivered." 

^'All  that  is  true,"  replied  Mr.  Thomson;  ^^but  still  I 
am  persuaded  that  a  greater  degree  of  plainness  in  our 
pulpits  would  be  an  improvement.  A  preacher  that  sup- 
poses his  congregation  to  know  too  much,  will  be  in  as  great 
an  error  as  he  who  gives  them  credit  for  too  little  knowledge 
of  spiritual  things.  The  latter  will  be  tedious  and  prolix  in 
defining  that  which  is  plain  to  every  one ;  but  the  former  will 
attempt  to  erect  his  building  before  the  foundation  has  been 
laid  :  he  will  place  himself  heyond  the  sympathy  of  his  peo- 
ple. I  know  that  it  requires  a  great  deal  of  caution,  and 
much  knowledge  of  the  mental   habits   of  our  people,  to 


18  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

strike  tlie  middle  way;   but  still  I  tliink  we  miglit  coma 
nearer  to  it  than  we  often  do.'^ 

^^  You  admit,  then,  that  one  cause  of  the  dearth  in  reli- 
gion is  the  estrangement  of  the  pulpit  from  the  people? 
But  you  account  for  this  estrangement  by  laying  the  blame, 
in  a  great  measure,  at  the  door  of  the  ministry  ?'^ 

^^  Precisely  so.  We  miss  the  sympathy  of  the  people, 
because,  in  preaching,  we  are  apt  to  pursue  modes  of  thought 
to  which  the  people  are  not  accustomed  in  every-day  life-.  I 
am  very  free  to  confess  that  I  have  often  felt  myself  guilty 
of  this  very  thing.  We  forget  that  our  people  are  not  all 
students  of  theology — that  many  of  them  do  not  spend  one 
hour  in  the  week  in  any  sort  of  religious  investigation.  We 
address  them  as  if  they  were  companions  in  our  labor — as  if 
they  had  marked  every  step  of  the  mental  process  by  which 
we  arrive  at  the  conclusions  of  an  argument.  By  this 
method  we  tax  their  minds  at  the  expense  of  their  hearts. 
They  have  little  time  to  /ee?,  whilst  they  are  striving  to 
understand  a  sermon. '^ 

"Indeed,  Brother  Thomson,  I  believe  you  are  right.  I 
have  always  noticed,  in  my  pulpit  efforts,  a  vast  difference 
between  preaching  to  the  blacks  and  preaching  to  the  whites. 
But  I  have  always  thought  the  reason  was  in  the  fact  that  I 
felt  more  at  ease,  more  removed  from  invidious  criticism 
when  preaching  to  negroes." 

"And  that  was  the  reason,  undoubtedly,  Brother  Mason. 
No  man  can  preach  with  energy  who  is  in  dread  of  violating 
a  rule  in  grammar,  or  propriety  in  rhetoric.  The  mind 
must  be  at  liberty,  if  the  heart  follows  with  it.  This  is  my 
experience.  When  we  have  a  congregation  of  educated 
people  to  address,  we  are  afraid  to  use  a  commonplace  ex- 
pression, but  strive  for  more  elevated  terms  of  thought : 
these  are  as  little  adapted  to  arouse  the  emotional  natures  of 
our  hearers,  as  they  are  to  express  the  outgushings  of  oui 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  19 

own  feelings ;  and  fhe  consequence  is,  neither  party  is  bene- 
fited. Or,  in  other  words,  we  cramp  our  own  emotions, 
that  we  may  reach  the  understanding  of  the  educated — hut 
only  succeed  in  missing  both  their  heads  and  their  hearts.'' 

"I  have  no  doubt  that  you  are  correct.  The  boast  of 
wisdom  and  education  in  the  nineteenth  century  has  led  us 
astray.  But  still  it  is  not  to  be  questioned  that  the  people 
themselves  are  devoted  to  the  follies  of  the  world  and  the 
acquisition  of  money." 

^^  Just  as  they  have  been  in  all  ages.  Men  are  stimulated 
to  activity  by  a  desire  to  acquire ;  activity  is  the  means  of 
progress,  and  thus  our  wealth  of  mind  and  matter  is  de- 
veloped. Without  such  a  desire  holding  its  proper  place  in 
our  economy,  we  should  relapse  into  barbarism,  or  at  least 
return  to  the  dark  ages  of  superstition  and  ignorance.  It  is 
the  province  of  religion  to  keep  this  principle  in  check — to 
use  it  for  great  and  benevolent  ends.  But  this  can  only  be 
done  by  weaning  the  heart  from  the  love  of  the  world  to  the 
gospel  of  Christ.  We  can  accomplish  this  by  bringing 
Christian  truth  to  bear  upon  the  heart,  and  the  more  simple 
the  means  we  use,  the  more  success  will  attend  us.  I  have 
observed  that '  the  unction  of  the  Holy  One'  seldom  attends 
the  preaching  of  one  who  is  not  natural  in  his  manner,  and 
simple  in  his  illustrations  of  Divine  truth.  The  heart  of  a 
philosopher  will  be  reached  as  soon  as  that  of  an  unlettered 
African,  by  the  pathos  of  a  little  child's  prayer.  If,  then, 
simplicity  gives  us  power  with  men,  it  is  Grod's  will  that  we 
should  thus  present  his  truth  to  our  fellow-creatures.  These 
are  my  views  of  preaching.  Alas  !  I  wish  I  could  say  that 
I  have  always  practiced  upon  my  own  theory." 

"  Your  views  are  forcibly  illustrated  in  the  sermons  of 
Daniel  Baker,  of  your  Church,  Mr.  Spurgeon,  in  the  Eng- 
lish Baptist,  and  Mr.  Caughey,  in  the  American  Methodist 
Church.     Their  sermons  are  plain,  forcible,  and  practical, 


20  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

appealing  directly  to  the  conscience,  and  moving  the  heart  to 
sympathy  and  feeling/' 

'■''  Yes,  and  so  we  must  preach,  if  we  desire  to  be  useful 
laborers  in  the  vineyard.  But  we  have  not  reached  the 
subject  which  I  desired  to  mention.  What  can  we  do  to 
promote  a  revival  of  religion  among  us  V^ 

'■'■  I  have  been  thinking  of  a  union  meeting  of  the  three 
churches  here,  for  the  purpose  of  enlisting  all  the  praying 
Christians  in  the  place.     What  do  you  think  of  it  ?" 

^^I  have  but  one  objection.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it 
has  ever  been  a  pleasure  to  me  to  unite  in  such  services  with 
my  Methodist  brethren,  but  I  have  found  by  experience  that 
these  ^  union'  meetings  seldom  turn  out  well." 

'■'■  In  what  respect  ?  You  do  not  mean  to  say  that  you 
have  had  cause  of  complaint  against  the  Methodists  ?" 

^^0  no!  the  utmost  harmony  and  good-fellowship  have 
always  characterized  our  intercourse.  But  you  remember 
there  are  tliree  parties  to  the  union  you  propose." 

^'- 1  understand  you.  Have  you  any  reason  to  apprehend 
difficulty  on  the  part  of  Brother  Ellis  ?" 

''Not  as  to  his  consenting  to  unite  with  us.  He  will  do 
tliat,  without  a  question.  But — you  know  his  darling  idea 
must  have  prominence.  If  he  cannot  introduce  it  during 
the  meeting,  he  only  requires  one  subject  at  the  close,  to  give 
a  text  and  a  sermon  in  which  we  shall  all  be  read  out  of  the 
Church  who  have  not  gone  under  the  water.  I  am  sorry  to 
say  so,  but  I  have  my  reasons." 

''  Do  not  be  uncharitable.  He  is  not  an  '  Old  Landmark' 
man." 

''  I  am  not  so  sure  of  that.  I  confess  I  have  my  fears. 
However,  if  we  do  our  duty,  we  can  leave  the  consequences 
to  Grod.  Our  purpose  is  good  :  if  he  sees  fit  to  become  the 
occasion  of  ofiTence  to  his  brethren,  we  will  not  be  to  blame." 

''I    am    sorry  that   you    have    any  grounds   to   suspect 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  2l 

Brother  Ellis.  I  have  long  sought  for  one  liberal  Baptist 
minister,  and  I  thought  I  had  found  him.  If  he  fails  me,  I 
shall  look  for  the  character  no  longer.  " 

^'-  Well,  we  ought  not  to  forego  an  attempt  to  do  good, 
because  some  evil  may  probably  grow  out  of  it.  We  had 
better  risk  an  excitement  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  than 
remain  as  we  are.'^ 

"  So  I  think.  If  our  Baptist  brother  violates  due  deco- 
rum, we  can  let  the  world  see  whose  is  the  fault,  and  if  he 
becomes  pugnacious,  why,  all  that  is  in  it  is,  we  can  fight  it 
out." 

"And  we  need  fear  nothing.  I  dislike  controversy,  but 
if  forced  to  it,  I  regard  it  a  Christian  duty.  When  shall 
we  begin  ?" 

"  Next  Sabbath  evening.  We  will  hold  special  services 
in  our  church  next  week,  and  I  shall  expect  you  to  preach 
on  Monday  night.'' 

"  Yery  well.  You  can  call  and  see  Brother  Ellis  on  your 
way  home,  and  I  have  no  doubt  he  will  agree  to  it.'' 

Mr.  Mason  took  leave  of  Mr.  Thomson,  and  called  upon 
Mr.  Ellis.  That  gentleman  was  highly  pleased  with  the 
proposition,  and  promised  his  cordial  cooperation.  Mr.  Ma- 
son returned  home,  pondering  the  subject  of  the  conversa- 
tion in  his  mind. 


22  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 


CHAPTER   V. 

THE    REVIVAL   AND    ITS    FRUITS. 

The  three  ministers  liad  been  engaged  several  days  in 
zealous  ani  laborious  efforts,  before  any  visible  effects  were 
produced.  At  last,  however,  the  union  of  earnest  hearts, 
and  the  supplication  of  faithful  Christians,  under  the  influ- 
ences of  the  gracious  Spirit,  began  to  tell  upon  the  hearts  of 
the  unconverted.  The  altar  was  crowded  with  weeping 
penitents,  and  many  embraced  the  faith  that  sweetly  works 
by  love  and  purifies  the  heart.  In  the  preaching,  praying, 
and  exhorting,  one  could  scarcely  distinguish  the  fact  that 
the  three  ministers  belonged  to  different  branches  of  the 
Church  of  Christ.  There  was  so  much  of  harmony  and 
brotherly  love,  that  skeptical  persons  were  forced  to  exclaim, 
^^  How  good  and  how  pleasant  it  is  for  brethren  to  dwell 
together  in  unity  !"  No  zeal  for  denominational  distinc- 
tions, no  thirst  for  pulling  down  the  tabernacles  of  their 
brethren,  found  a  place  in  these  hearts  so  wholly  filled  with 
the  essence  of  religion — love.  No  word  of  offence  was  ut- 
tered— not  a  sentiment  advanced  that  could  have  given  pain 
to  any  child  of  Jesus.  It  was  the  golden  age  of  religion  in 
Maryville.  The  oldest  inhabitants  had  never  known  such 
general  interest  and  inquiry  among  the  people.  Many  men 
had  been  brought  under  gospel  influences  who  had  been 
prominently  known  hitherto  as  unbelievers  or  skeptics. 

Mr.  Ellis,  the  Baptist    minister,  was    unusually   liberal 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  23 

in  his  expressions  of  love  and  esteem  for  his  dear  breth- 
ren of  the  sister  Churches.  He  deplored  the  unfortunate 
coolness  which  sometimes  seemed  to  exist  between  their 
respective  denominations.  But  now  that  Grod  had  visited 
them  with  such  abundant  measures  of  grace,  he  rejoiced  in 
the  fact  that  they  were  all  become  children  of  one  Father, 
and  were  sitting  meekly  at  the  feet  of  Jesus. 

The  meeting  continued  nearly  two  weeks,  and  when 
brought  to  a  close  on  Wednesday  evening,  the  announce- 
ment was  made  by  Mr.  Mason,  that  those  persons  who  had 
made  a  profession  of  religion  during  the  revival  ought  to 
feel  perfectly  free  in  uniting  with  that  branch  of  the  Church 
in  which  they  conscientiously  believed  they  could  best  ad- 
vance the  glory  of  Grod.  In  this  matter,  however,  as  they 
had  laid  aside  all  right  of  interference,  or  rather  did  not 
believe  they  possessed  any,  the  ministers  felt  perfectly  satis- 
fied of  the  competency  of  each  to  determine  for  himself. 

On  Friday,  after  the  close  of  the  meeting,  Mr.  Thomson 
called  on  the  Methodist  minister. 

"  "Well,  Brother  Mason,  have  you  heard  the  news  V^ 

"No,  sir;  to  what  do  you  refer  V 

"  You  know  that  three  young  men  joined  your  Church, 
and  two  young  ladies  joined  mine,  who  have  been  brought  up 
in  Baptist  families  V 

"  Yes,  Mr.  Smith's  sons  and  the  brother  of  Dr.  Walton 
have  united  with  us,  but  what  of  that  V 

"Why,  nothing  more  than  that  we  have  been  publicly 
charged  on  the  streets  with  having  proselyted  them  V 

"  Indeed  !  I  never  uttered  a  syllable  to  one  of  the  young 
men  about  joining  the  Methodist  Church.^' 

"Nor  did  I  mention  the  subject  of  joining  the  Church  to 
the  Misses  Brown ;  but  nevertheless  our  names  are  bandied 
about  this  very  day  as  if  we  were  hypocrites  and  deceivers." 

"  Indeed  !  who  has  said  it  V 


24  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^'  Members  of  the  Baptist  Church,  and  I  am  not  sure  if 
Brother  Ellis  is  not  at  the  bottom  of  it/' 

"  Surely  not.  Have  you  conversed  with  him  on  the  sub- 
ject?'' 

'^  Yes,  I  have  just  left  him.  He  seems  to  give  credit  to 
the  report,  notwithstanding  I  assured  him  in  the  most  posi- 
tive manner  I  could  that  the  story  was  untrue." 

^'  That  is  very  strange,  indeed.  Did  he  give  any  reasons 
for  his  belief?" 

^'  None — only  that  some  influence  must  have  been  exer- 
cised over  the  minds  of  these  persons,  else  they  would  not 
have  repudiated  their  old  associations.  He  also  said,  that 
under  such  circumstances  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find 
him  defending  his  Church  against  such  encroachments." 

"  Defending  his  Church  !  Is  the  man  deranged  ?  Who 
has  attacked  his  Church  ?" 

^'  No  one.  It  is  another  illustration  of  the  fable  of  the 
wolf  and  the  lamb.  He  would  gladly  have  a  cause  to  agi- 
tate the  question  of  baptism,  and  as  we  have  given  none,  he 
will  asswine  an  attack,  and  plunge  into  an  ostensible  defence. 
You  remember  what  I  told  you  before  this  meeting  began. 
I  had  reasons  for  believing  that  he  would  take  this  course. 
He  deceived  me  once  before.  You  may  not  be  aware  of 
the  fact,  but  my  oldest  daughter  is  a  member  of  his  Church. 
Several  years  ago,  whilst  a  revival  was  in  progress  here,  and 
all  were  in  harmony  and  peace,  my  daughter  Mary  requested 
to  spend  the  evening  with  the  children  of  a  Baptist  neigh- 
bor. At  first  I  objected,  but  when  Brother  Ellis  assured 
me  that  no  subject  of  Church  disputes  should  be  introduced 
there,  I  sufi'ered  her  to  go.  She  was  then  quite  young,  and 
unable  to  judge  for  herself  in  a  matter  of  controversy,  and 
when  the  subject  of  baptism  was  introduced,  and  their  argu- 
ments presented  to  her,  the  child  knew  no  reply  to  make. 
I   have   undoubted   evidence   from  the  child  herself,  that 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  25 

Brotlier  Ellis  spent  two  whole  hours  in  showing  her  the  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  baptism  by  immersion.  I  know  not  what 
other  influences  they  brought  to  bear  upon  her,  but  they  suc- 
ceeded by  these  secret  intrigues  in  winning  my  child  from  me, 
and  bringing  her  into  their  Church.  Now,  Brother  Mason, 
if  she  had  chosen  to  do  so,  without  proselyting  efforts,  I  could 
not  have  objected  to  her  becoming  a  Baptist.  But  to  see 
her  forced  from  me,  and  enticed  into  a  communion  where 
she  cannot  approach  the  table  of  the  Lord  with  her  own 
parents,  is  indeed  a  sore  affliction  to  me.'' 

^'Aud  have  you  made  no  effort  to  reclaim  her  1" 
''  What  can  I  do  ?  I  have  no  doubt  that  she  would  gladly 
return  to  her  proper  place,  but  you  know  that  the  Baptists 
inflict  the  severest  penalty  known  to  the  Church  upon  those 
who  leave  them.  A  public  trial  and  formal  excommunica- 
tion await  any  one  who  withdraws  to  another  Church.  Nor 
is  this  all :  she  must  forfeit  the  friendship  of  those  who  were 
instrumental  in  proselyting  her,  and  the  innumerable  an- 
noyances to  which  she  would  be  exposed  have  hitherto  pre- 
vented her  from  uniting  with  us." 

^'And  yet  these  same  Baptist  preachers  tell  us  that  they 
are  advocates  of  religious  liberty  !     0  shame  !  shame  !" 

'at  is  indeed  humiliating  to  make  the  acknowledgment 
to  the  enemies  of  Christianity,  but  nevertheless  it  is  palpa- 
bly true.  We  have  among  us  a  people  who,  whilst  they 
profess  to  yield  to  every  one  the  right  of  judgment  in  reli- 
gious matters,  perpetuate  the  same  system  in  retaining  their 
members  that  is  practiced  by  the  Church  of  Rome.  Their 
anathemas  may  not  be  dreaded  as  are  the  decrees  of  the 
Vatican,  but  it  is  not  their  fault  that  they  are  not.  The 
compulsion  is  as  absolute,  in  a  moral  sense,  as  if  they  had 
the  power  to  inflict  physical  pains  and  penalties.  Whatever 
else  it  may  be,  certainly  the  Baptist  Church  is  not  a  volun- 
tary  association.  The  power  of  choice  is  for  ever  alienated 
2 


26  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     CR, 

the  moment  tlie  immersion  takes  place.  Beyond  tliat  point, 
the  believer  is  debarred  the  right  of  thinking  for  himself/' 

"  Well,  I  suppose  Brother  Ellis  will  give  ns  a  sermon  on 
Baptism  next  Sabbath/' 

^^  Of  course  he  will,  and  handle  us  without  gloves,  I  have 
no  doubt/' 

"  Can  we  not  make  it  convenient  to  attend  ?" 

"  I  would  do  so,  but  he  would  claim  that  we  are  attempt- 
ing to  intimidate  him,  and  prevent  the  free  expression  of 
his  views." 

"  That  would  be  certainly  without  foundation." 

'^And  yet  he  would  make  capital  of  it.  He  would  appeal 
to  the  sympathies  of  the  people,  and  become  eloquent  over 
the  sufferings  of  Baptist  martyrs,  who  were  the  victims  of 
persecution." 

^^  Well,  let  us  bide  the  time,  and  take  our  usual  course. 
If  he  misrepresents  us,  we  shall  not  fail  to  hear  it." 

"  I  think  that  the  better  course.  In  the  meantime  I  must 
endeavor  to  get  at  the  root  of  the  charges  which  are  being 
preferred  against  me.  I  must  meet  our  session  this  after- 
noon, and,  as  the  hour  is  approaching,  I  will  bid  you  good 
day." 

With  these  words,  Mr.  Thomson  left  the  house. 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  27 


CHAPTER    VI. 

CONSISTENCY    IS    A    JEWEL. 

Before  the  Sabbath  arrived,  it  became  generally  circulated 
through  the  community  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Ellis  would 
demonstrate  the  truth  of  ^'  believers'  baptism"  on  that  day. 
No  little  excitement  was  manifested  in  various  quarters.  On 
the  part  of  the  Baptists  there  was  a  great  anxiety  to  have 
the  number  of  subjects  swelled  as  far  as  possible,  until  they 
were  led  almost  to  the  extremes  which  they  condemned : 
several  young  children,  not  far  removed,  if  at  all,  from  a 
state  of  infancy^  were  among  the  candidates. 

The  congregation  was  very  large.  The  candidates  for 
baptism  were  placed  in  a  conspicuous  position,  dressed  in 
white,  and  seemed  to  feel  that  they  were  the  objects  of  gene- 
ral interest.  Mr.  Ellis,  after  the  usual  services,  introduced 
his  text,  which  consisted  of  two  words  only  :  ^'  Follow  me,'' 
They  were  the  words  of  Christ  to  Philip,  recorded  in  the  43  d 
verse  of  the  first  chapter  of  the  Grospel  by  St.  John. 

The  necessity  of  following  the  commandments  of  Christ 
was  dwelt  upon  with  considerable  emphasis,  but  with  espe- 
cial reference  to  the  ordinance  of  baptism.  In  this  case, 
Christ  had  given  not  only  a  command,  but  had  left  us  his 
example.  In  following  one,  we  followed  the  other.  If  we 
could  determine  in  what  manner  Christ  was  baptized,  in  that 
manner  we  ought  to  be  baptized.  If  we  had  the  right  to 
alter  one  of  Christ's  commandments^  we  could  alter  them  all. 


28  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

But  Christ  was  evidently  baptized  in  a  river,  and  it  would 
be  utterly  absurd  to  suppose  that  he  was  baptized  otherwise 
than  by  immersion.  All  lexicographers  agreed  that  the 
meaning  of  haptidzo  was  to  immerse.  Indeed,  no  Pedo- 
baptist  who  had  any  claim  to  respectability  had  denied  it. 
The  Pedobaptists  had  acknowledged  that  it  was  the  ancient 
mode;  and  the  churches  in  the  first  centuries  certainly  un- 
derstood what  particular  act  Christ  denominated  baptism. 
From  all  this  he  argued  that,  as  Christ  was  baptized  by  im- 
mersion, as  he  commanded  immersion,  there  was  no  possible 
way  of  keeping  Christ's  commandment  without  being  im- 
mersed. It  was  indeed  a  cross,  but  a  cross  which  Christ 
himself  had  borne;  and  if  men  would  persecute  the  be- 
liever, he  had  certain  evidence  therein  that  he  was  doing 
the  will  of  God  in  submitting  to  his  ordinance. 

In  conclusion,  he  could  not  hesitate  to  affirm,  nay,  the 
wrath  of  Grod  was  threatened  against  him  if  he  did  not 
affirm,  that  those  who  resisted  the  light  of  reason  and  revela- 
tion on  this  subject,  were  in  positive  rebellion  against  the 
King  of  heaven.  They  impiously  resisted  a  command  of 
God,  and  could  not  consequently  be  innocent.  Although  he 
regretted  to  say  so,  yet  the  vindication  of  the  truth  required 
it :  the  Pedobaptists  had  laid  sacrilegious  hands  upon  the 
ark  of  God.  They  had  substituted  the  commandments  of 
men  for  those  of  God,  and  in  so  doing  revealed  the  charac- 
teristics of  that  Antichrist,  who  should  obstruct  the  progress 
of  the  truth,  and  afflict  the  true  Church  of  God.  That 
there  were  pious  individuals  among  Pedobaptist  societies,  he 
had  no  doubt ;  but  they  were  such  because  they  were  kept 
in  ignorance  of  their  duty.  He  had  no  doubt  the  day  would 
gome  when  priestly  domination  would  be  overthrown,  and 
the  true  Church  would  come  forth,  ^'  clear  as  the  sun,  fair  as 
the  moon,  and  terrible  as  an  army  with  banners.''  For  the 
ignorant  he  had  the  warmest  sympathy;  but  for  those  who 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  29 

kept  tliem  hoodwinked,  and  forced  them  to  rebellion  against 
God,  he  could  not  restrain  his  righteous  indignation. 

Such  was  the  substance  of  the  sermon.  Many  quotations 
from  Pedobaptist  authors  were  produced,  as  found  in  Baptist 
books,  and  their  testimony  was  represented  as  decisive,  inas- 
much as  it  was  all  against  themselves.  He  would  not  quote 
from  his  own  brethren,  as  they  were  interested  witnesses ; 
but  when  Pedobaptist  writers  gave  up  their  cause,  it  must 
indeed  be  hopeless. 

There  could  be  no  mistake  as  to  the  impression  which  this 
sermon  produced.  Some,  who  were  members  of  Pedobaptist 
churches,  were,  of  course,  mortified  and  insulted.  But  the 
Baptists  were  in  ecstasies.  The  thing  was  made  as  clear  as 
the  noonday  light,  and  they  wondered  that  any  human  being 
who  had  common  sense  could  resist  the  truth.  With  the 
immersion  of  the  candidates  in  the  church  pool,  the  exer- 
cises closed,  and  the  people  departed  to  their  homes,  some 
grieving  over  the  capital  which  had  been  that  day  given  to 
the  accuser.  To  deny  that  Mr.  Ellis  had  shown  up  his  own 
inconsistency  before  the  world,  was  impossible.  The  plain- 
est mind,  not  biased  by  prejudice,  could  see  that  he  had 
placed  himself  in  a  ridiculous  dilemma.  He  had  but  a  few 
days  since  claimed  fraternity  with  those  Pedobaptist  teach- 
ers, whom  to-day  he  stigmatized  as  rebels  against  God.  He 
had  called  them  brethren,  children  of  the  same  Father, 
sitting  at  the  feet  of  Jesus,  in  the  revival.  But  at  the 
baptism  they  were  rebels  against  God,  impious  mutilators  of 
his  word,  wilfully  blinding  the  eyes  of  the  people,  and  thus 
leading  them  into  grievous  sin  against  God.  There  were  not 
wanting  those  who  said  he  had  played  his  part  well — having 
gulled  the  Methodists  and  the  Presbyterians  with  pleasant 
words  until  he  gathered  his  utmost  of  the  profits,  and  then  ex- 
hibiting his  true  character  in  the  native  deformity  of  bigotry. 

As  the  reader  has  seen,  the  attack  was  not  wholly  unex- 


30  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

pected.  The  two  other  ministers  were  prepared  to  hear  the 
worst  news  from  the  advocate  of  immersion.  On  the  follow- 
ing day,  Mr.  Thomson  waited  upon  Mr.  Ellis,  and  asked 
him,  in  a  friendly  way,  if  he  was  prepared  to  establish  the 
wholesale  charges  he  had  made  on  Sabbath.  To  this,  Mr. 
Ellis  replied  that  he  saw  no  necessity  for  further  proof  than 
that  he  had  already  given.  A  month's  controversy,  he  said, 
would  not  set  the  matter  in  a  clearer  light  than  it  was  at  that 
moment.  If,  however,  the  Pedobaptists  desired  a  contro- 
versy, he  would  find  a  man  who  would  be  willing  to  in- 
vestigate the  subject  with  any  one  of  them.  It  must  be 
understood,  however,  that  they,  the  Pedobaptists,  would  be 
held  responsible  for  any  excitement  on  the  subject  I 

Mr.  Thomson  saw  the  utter  impossibility  of  obtaining 
justice  in  this  way,  and,  after  informing  Mr.  Ellis  that  he 
would  consult  with  Mr.  Mason,  he  went  to  the  house  of  the 
Methodist  minister.  There  he  found  several  persons  who 
united  in  requesting  one  or  both  of  the  ministers  to  reply 
to  the  sermon  of  Mr.  Ellis.  Among  this  number  was 
Theophilus  Walton.  Having  joined  the  Methodist  Church 
as  the  Church  of  his  choice,  against  the  known  wishes  of  his 
parents,  he  desired  to  be  baptized  by  immersion,  not  only  to 
soften  the  opposition  of  his  father,  who  was  very  rigid  in  his 
doctrinal  opinions,  but  also  because  he  believed  that  mode 
to  be  truly  scriptural  and  proper.  Inasmuch,  however,  as  he 
had  never  heard  a  Pedobaptist  discourse  on  the  subject  of 
baptism,  he  readily  joined  with  the  rest  of  the  company  in 
requesting  a  reply  to  Mr.  Ellis. 

^'1  would  not  hesitate  to  preach  upon  the  subject,'^  said 
Mr.  Mason,  '^but  it  will  require  a  series  of  sermons  to 
examine  the  entire  question.  My  sermons  would  unques- 
tionably call  out  Brother  Ellis,  and  so  there  might  be  no  end  to 
the  replies  from  the  pulpit.  I  would  much  prefer  to  meet 
him  in  a  regular,  public  discussion." 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  31 

"But  that  you  will  never  do/^  said  Mr.  Thomson,  "for 
I  have  just  seen  him,  and  he  declines  entering  into  a  con- 
troversy. He  thinks  enough  has  been  said  upon  the  sub- 
jeet!- 

"Indeed!''  replied  Mr.  Mason.  "Enough  has  been  said 
on  one  side,  doubtless ;  but  it  is  nothing  but  fair  to  hear  the 
other.'' 

"  He  states,  however,  that  if  we  are  anxious  to  have  a  de- 
bate, and  will  consider  ourselves  responsible  for  any  excite- 
ment which  may  grow  out  of  it,  he  will  find  a  man  who  will 
meet  either  of  us." 

"  Well,  well !  If  that  is  not  the  most  absurd  thing  that  I 
ever  heard !  We  responsible  for  the  excitement,  when 
the  whole  community  is  already  in  a  ferment,  and  neither 
of  us  has  uttered  a  word  about  the  matter  in  public  !  Can 
this  be  the  man  who  was  so  recently  full  of  love  and  charity 
toward  his  dear  Christian  brethren  of  all  denominations? 
Truly,  the  enemies  of  Christ  are  sometimes  those  of  his  own 
professed  household !" 

"I  cannot  see,"  said  Mr.  Thomson,  "in  this  state  of 
affairs,  any  better  method  to  pursue,  than  a  calm  exposition 
of  the  subject  from  our  pulpits,  together  with  an  exposure  of 
the  garbled  extracts  taken  from  our  authors.  If  we  do  not 
notice  him,  he  will  claim  the  victory :  if  we  do,  he  will  cry 
persecution !  Either  way,  we  have  to  deal  with  an  unfair 
opponent,  upon  his  own  ground." 

"  Let  us  not  be  too  hasty,"  said  Theophilus.  "  Perhaps  a 
more  charitable  construction  will  be  safer  in  the  end." 

"  I  beg  your  pardon,  Theophilus,"  replied  Mr.  Thomson, 
"  I  ought  to  recall  my  remark  for  Miss  Mary's  sake." 

"Not  at  all,"  said  Theoj)hilus,  with  embarrassment,  "I 
appreciate  your  motives,  but  perhaps  you  may  misunderstand 
Mr.  Ellis.  At  all  events,  if  you  will  permit  me  to  do  so,  I 
think  I  can  suggest  a  plan  by  which  the  matter  may  be  dis- 


32  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

posed  of,  at  least  to  tlie  satisfaction  of  some  of  us,  wlio  feel 
deeply  interested/^ 

"  Very  well/'  replied  Mr.  Thomson,  "  we  shall  be  glad 
to  hear  it/' 

"  I  propose,  then,  that  you  preach  a  sermon  on  the  subject, 
and  thus  reply  to  the  discourse  of  last  Sabbath.  In  the 
next  place,  if  it  suits  Mr.  Mason's  convenience,  I  would  be 
glad  if  he  will  consent  to  examine  the  whole  subject,  and 
permit  those  who  desire  to  do  so  to  attend,  and  suggest  any 
difficulty  which  may  present  itself  to  their  minds.  I  have 
many  doubts  on  my  own  mind,  both  in  regard  to  the  mode 
and  subjects  of  baptism;  and,  as  I  have  united  with  the 
Methodist  Church,  I  desire  to  know  all  that  can  be  said  in 
favor  of  Pedobaptist  views.  My  reasons  for  joining  the 
Methodist  Church  are  wholly  irrelevant  to  this  subject,  it  is 
true,  yet  I  desire  to  embrace  all  the  doctrines  of  the  Church, 
if  I  can  do  so  conscientiously." 

"I  am  pleased  with  your  proposition,"  remarked  Mr. 
Thomson.  ^'It  would  be  unnecessary  for  both  of  us  to 
preach  a  sermon  in  reply,  and  as  your  pastor  is  in  duty  bound 
to  give  you  any  light  he  may  have  upon  the  subject,  we  shall 
wisely,  and  I  think  profitably,  divide  the  labor.  You  can 
hear  my  sermon,  and  I  will  propose  to  my  young  members 
who  may  have  any  scruples  about  baptism,  to  attend  your 
meetings  here.  If  this  arrangement  meets  the  concurrence 
of  Brother  Mason,  we  shall  have  the  matter  understood." 

"  I  shall  agree  with  all  my  heart  to  the  plan,"  said  Mr. 
Mason,  ^^and  on  Thursday  evening  we  can  meet  at  this 
place.  You  can  say,  Theophilus,  to  any  of  your  friends  who 
desire  to  do  so,  that  we  would  be  glad  to  have  them  join  us 
in  this  investigation." 

"Before  we  separate,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  "I 
desire  to  place  in  your  hands  a  work  which  is  being  circu- 
lated  among  us,  and   if  you  will  allow   me  to  suggest  a 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  33 

particular  metliod,  I  would  recommend  you  to  examine  its 
arguments.  It  is  called  '  Theodosia  Urnest ;  or,  The  Hero- 
ine of  Faith.'  The  spirit  of  tlie  work  seems  to  be  fair,  and 
I  regard  its  positions  as  very  strong,  if  not  impregnable.'' 

'^  Very  well.  I  have  never  seen  the  book  before,  nor  have 
I  heard  of  it.  I  will  look  over  it,  however,  between  this  and 
Thursday  evening.'' 

The  company  then  separated,  and  left  Mr.  Mason  alone 
with  his  books. 


2* 


34  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 


CHAPTER    VII. 

THE    DOUBT    REMOVED. 

The  interview  wliicli  resulted  in  so  happy  an  understand- 
ing between  Thcopliilus  Walton  and  Mary  Ellis,  as  related 
in  Chapter  Second,  occurred  but  a  short  time  previous  to  the 
events  which  we  have  just  described. 

In  the  quiet  confidence  of  trusting  hearts,  the  young 
couple  were  waiting  the  appointed  time  for  the  consumma- 
tion of  their  domestic  happiness,  when  the  "  union  meeting" 
commenced.  Theophilus  had  received  at  an  early  age  many 
of  the  prejudices  in  favor  of  his  father's  Church,  particularly 
a  belief  in  immersion  as  the  only  valid  mode  of  Christian  bap- 
tism. But,  although  he  possessed  much  of  the  zeal  in  behalf 
of  this  doctrine  which  distinguishes  its  adherents,  he  was 
nevertheless  actuated  by  noble  and  generous  principles  in 
according  all  honesty  and  sincerity  to  those  who  differed 
with  him.  It  did  indeed  seem  ungenerous,  not  to  say  un- 
christian, to  him,  to  exclude  those  who  were  acknowledged 
to  be  pious  people  from  the  table  of  the  Lord ;  yet  he  was 
taught  to  believe  it  a  fundamental  duty,  required  for  the 
preservation  of  a  pure  gospel. 

Under  the  tuition  of  Dr.  Thomas,  in  the  State  University, 
he  of  course  attended  upon  the  Baptist  ministry.  Occasion- 
ally, however,  he  visited  the  Pedobaptist  churches,  and  could 
not  fail  to  see  a  marked  difference  between  the  preaching  of 
his  own  and  that  of  other  pastors.     In  his  own  Church — or 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  35 

rather  that  wliich  he  called  his  own,  for  he  was  not  then  a 
member  of  it — there  was  a  continual  presentation  of  the  sub- 
ject of  baptism.  Scarcely  a  sermon  was  preached  that  did 
not  contain  some  allusion  to  the  ordinance.  He  heard  many 
in  which  Christ  was  scarcely  named;  but  the  favorite  theme 
of  baptism  was  always  provided  with  a  passport  to  the  atten- 
tion of  the  congregation.  In  other  churcheSj  however,  he 
seldom,  if  ever,  heard  it  named.  Under  these  circumstances, 
he  could  not  fail  to  ask  himself  the  cause  of  this  difference. 
If  our  preachers  are  so  certain  that  immersion  is  right, 
thought  he,  why  do  they  keep  continually  trying  to  prove  it  ? 
Why  do  they  keep  this  subject  for  ever  before  the  people,  if 
they  are  not  in  doubt  about  it,  and  fear  that  the  people  may 
be  also  ?  Why  is  there  so  little  effort  to  enforce  the  duties 
of  repentance  and  faith,  without  which  no  one  can  be  saved  ? 
Surely  they  are  fearful  of  their  position,  else,  having  once 
established  it,  they  would  let  it  stand  upon  its  own  basis.  On 
one  occasion  he  proposed  his  doubts  to  Dr.  Thomas  in  a  pri- 
vate conversation.  The  Doctor,  however,  quieted  his  appre- 
hensions by  telling  him,  that  as  the  greater  part  of  the  world 
was  wrong  on  that  subject,  they  could  not  have  too  much 
light.  "  ^  Line  upon  line,  and  precept  upon  precept,'  '^  said  he ; 
'' '  here  a  little,  and  there  a  little.'  AVhen  men  are  convinced 
of  their  duty  in  this  regard,  we  can  turn  our  attention  with- 
out distraction  to  other  things."  Theophilus  was  not  quite 
satisfied  with  this  reply;  but,  as  the  Doctor  was  a  good  man, 
and  the  pastor  a  good  man,  he  would  not  permit  himself  to 
question  the  propriety  of  their  course. 

After  he  returned  from  college,  however,  and  observed  the 
same  course  in  Mr.  Ellis,  the  pastor  in  Maryville,  he  became 
quite  tired  of  it,  and,  for  the  sake  of  variety,  frequently 
visited  the  Methodist  and  Presbyterian  Churches.  Satisfied 
himself  as  to  the  correctness  of  immersion  as  the  mode  of 
baptism,  he  found  it  necessary,  if  he  would  be  entertained 


36  ^       THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

and  profited,  to  visit  other  cliurches.  Mr.  Walton,  his 
father,  had  frequently  observed  this,  and  several  times  gave 
him  to  understand  that  he  did  not  approve  of  it ;  and,  to  keep 
peace  at  home,  Theophilus  for  a  season  desisted.  When 
the  ^^  union  meeting'^  commenced,  and  all  parties  for  the 
time  being  were  sitting  under  the  same  ministry,  he  felt 
relieved.  Now  he  could  hear  the  gospel,  without  a  perora- 
tion about  the  ^^ river  Jordan,'^  the  ^'yielding  wave,''  and 
'^  being  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism.''  Now  he  found 
the  ideal  which  he  had  in  his  mind,  of  Christian  fellowship, 
fully  exhibited.  And  there,  too,  on  the  first  evening,  he  felt 
a  new  and  lively  interest  in  the  subject  of  religion.  Tho 
word  came  to  his  heart  in  power :  the  Spirit  of  God,  by  that 
eloquence  which  is  beyond  human  excellence,  persuaded 
him  to  confess  his  sins  and  come  to  Christ.  He  hesitated 
long,  but  finally  ventured  to  the  altar  for  prayer.  His  ex- 
ample was  followed  by  many  others,  and  the  prayers  of  the 
people  were  answered  in  their  behalf.  Mr.  Mason  was  kneel- 
ing by  his  side,  pressing  home  to  him  the  great  doctrine  of 
justification  by  simple  faith  in  Jesus,  and  persuading  him  to 
make  the  venture — to  throw  himself,  sinful  as  he  was,  into 
the  arms  of  redeeming  love — when  Theophilus  felt  that 
strange  warming  of  his  heart  which  was  hitherto  unknown 
to  him.  He  felt  the  truth — he  believed,  he  embraced  it — 
and  Grcd's  Spirit,  in  a  signal  manner,  gave  him  the  witness 
of  his  acceptance.  In  the  inexpressible  rapture  of  a  new- 
born soul,  he  clasped  Mr.  Mason  in  his  arms,  and  for  some 
moments  they  rejoiced  together.  From  that  hour,  Theophi- 
lus felt  a  singular  attachment  for  Mr.  Mason.  He  had 
always  respected  him,  now  he  loved  him.  He  could  not 
refrain  from  saying,  ^^Thy  God  shall  be  my  God;"  and  at 
another  time,  after  a  fearful  struggle  between  his  conscience 
and  the  known  wishes  of  his  parents,  he  declared,  ^^Thy  peo- 
ple shall  be  my  people."     He  could  not  bear  the  thought  of 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  37 

excluding  liiin  wlio,  under  God,  was  the  means  of  his  conver- 
sion, from  the  fold  of  Christ,  and  he  felt  that  the  privilege 
of  meeting  around  the  table  of  the  Lord,  to  commemorate 
his  death  and  suflFerings,  was  the  highest  known  to  Christians 
on  earth. 

Constrained  by  a  sense  of  duty,  he  joined  the  Methodist 
Church ;  and  although  his  father  met  him  with  a  frown,  and 
his  mother  seemed  to  treat  him  coldly,  he  prayed  that  God 
would  soften  their  hearts,  and  restore  him  to  their  confi- 
dence. 

Since  the  hour  in  which  he  gave  his  hand  to  the  minister, 
in  token  of  his  desire  to  unite  with  the  people  of  God,  he 
had  had  no  opportunity  to  converse  with  Mary  upon  the 
subject.  He  knew  that  she  would  have  preferred  his  union 
with  the  Baptists,  but  how  far  her  prejudices  might  bias  her 
judgment,  and  what  effect  his  recent  course  might  have  upon 
her  affection  for  him,  he  could  not  tell.  Once  he  was  re- 
solved to  make  known  his  intention  to  her,  and  ascertain 
her  feelings  with  regard  to  it.  Then,  again,  he  searched  his 
own  heart  thoroughly,  and  felt  that  whatever  others  might  do, 
there  was  but  one  course  open  to  him.  His  spiritual  welfare 
could  only  be  provided  for  by  obeying  the  dictates  of  that 
conscience  which  he  firmly  believed  to  be  enlightened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God.  To  ask  her  advice,  then,  with  a  previous 
determination  to  reject  it  if  it  did  not  coincide  with  his 
determination,  he  felt  to  be  not  only  useless,  but  really  a 
mockery. 

He  had  never  seen  any  reason  to  regret  his  engagement. 
Mary's  affection  he  could  not  doubt.  He  was  once  possessor 
of  her  heart.  But  now  that  he  had,  to  some  extent  at  least, 
changed  his  religious  opinions;  now  that  he  felt  constrained 
to  oppose  his  parents,  and  brook  their  displeasure,  in  order 
to  maintain  a  clear  conscience — must  he  pay  the  price  of  her 
affection  too  ?     K  his  own  father  could  treat  him  with  indif- 


38  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

ference;  if  his  own  inotlier — sustaining  the  dearest  of  all 
earthly  relationships — if  she  could  yield  a  mother's  love,  at 
the  command  of  a  rigid  sectarianism,  what  must  he  expect 
from  Mary?  The  young,  artless  child,  so  full  of  filial 
respect,  so  pliable  to  a  mother's  mandates  —  would  she  de- 
sert him  too  ?  And  if  she  did,  could  he  make  the  sacri- 
fice— silence  the  inward  monitor,  and  yield  his  conscience  to 
secure  his  bride  ?  And  if  thus  secured,  purchased  at  the 
expense  of  his  religious  peace,  could  he  lay  his  hand  upon 
his  heart,  and  tell  his  Heavenly  Father  that  he  had  done  all 
for  his  glory  ? 

These  and  similar  questions  gave  Theophilus  no  little  per- 
plexity. Several  times  he  determined  to  have  the  matter  set 
at  rest.  He  would  see  Mary,  and  frankly  tell  her  all.  But 
as  often  as  the  possibility  of  realizing  his  fears  came  over 
his  spirit  as  a  dark  shadow,  he  sank  down  again,  nerveless 
and  irresolute. 

At  last,  however,  resolved  to  know  the  worst  of  his  pros- 
pects, and  hastily  threading  the  streets  of  the  village,  he 
called  at  the  house  of  Mr.  Ellis. 

Mary  received  him  with  her  usual  cordiality,  but  Theophi- 
lus fancied  that  there  was  something  formal  and  ceremoni- 
ous in  her  salutation. 

^'  Well  now,  Mr.  Methodist,"  said  Mary,  ^^  I  think  it  was 
too  bad  in  you  to  desert  your  old  friends,  and  join  another 
Church." 

^'  I  have  deserted  no  one,  Mary;  I  have  simply  tried  to  do 
my  duty.     Are  you  going  to  quarrel  with  me  about  that?" 

^'Unless  you  can  prove  that  it  was  your  diitT/  to  join  the 
Methodists,  You  can't  imagine,  Theophilus,  how  father 
takes  it  to  heart.  He  says  that  you  are  the  last  man  he 
would  have  selected  as  a  deserter." 

^^  You  pain  me,  Mary,  by  talking  about  deserting  the  Bap- 
tists; I  never  was  a  member  of  the  Baptist  Church.     I  have 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  39 

not  altered  my  views  upon  the  subject  without  earnestly 
praying  to  God  for  direction/^ 

"  Well,  The.,  I  don't  mean  to  reproach  you.  I  said  fathei 
called  you  a  deserter.  I  did  not — at  least,  not  in  earnest. 
But  look  here.  The.,  I  think  /can  convince  you  that  immer- 
sion is  the  right  way.'' 

"  No  doubt  of  it,  my  love :  your  arguments  will  always 
prove  strong  ones  with  me." 

^'  Come,  now,  Theophilus,  I  don't  intend  that  you  shall 
rally  me  in  that  manner.  I  mean  to  show  you  how  Christ 
was  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan — in  the  river,  don't  you 
see?" 

^'  Stop,  my  little  controversialist,  I  have  not  disputed  that." 

^'  Well,  then,  that  is  the  way  we  are  to  be  baptized — we 
must  follow  Christ." 

'•''  What !  must  we  go  to  the  river  Jordan  ?  Few  of  us 
will  get  that  privilege,  I  think." 

"  Well,  no ;   not  in  the  Jordan,  but  in  a  river." 

^'  Were  you  baptized  in  a  river ^  Mary  ?" 

'^  No ;  that's  a  fact — I  was  immersed  in  the  pool  in  our 
church ;  but,  then,  it's  all  the  same." 

^'Not  altogether  the  same,  Mary.  If  we  follow  Christ, 
we  must  follow  him  in  all  particulars — if  not  in  all,  why  in 
any?" 

^'  Why,  you  don't  mean  to  say  that  baptism  is  of  no  im- 
portance, do  you?" 

"I  will  tell  you  what  I  will  say,  my  love,  and  that  is,  that 
I  will  not  dispute  about  baptism  with  youP 

^^And  why  not  with  me  ?" 

"  Because  I  should  not  like  to  be  beaten  in  argument,  and 
I  should  dislike  still  more  to  vanquish  you." 

^'  0  !  well,  since  that  is  the  case,  we  can  have  a  drawn 
hattle,  and  save  honor  on  both  sides.  But  mind.  The.,  you 
must  be  immersed  !" 


40 


OR 


"That  I  expect  to  be.  But  tell  me,  Mary,  do  you  blame 
me  for  joining  the  Methodist  Church?^' 

"  Well,  not  if  you  felt  it  to  be  your  duty.  I  would  rather 
sec  you  a  Baptist.^' 

''That  I  expected,  of  course.  You  can't  tell,  Mary,  how 
I  have  suffered  on  your  account.'' 

''  On  my  account !  how  V 

''  Why,  my  love,  I  was  afraid  you  might  turn  against  me  too.'' 

"  What,  Theophilus  !  could  you  doiiht  me?" 

"  Not  if  you  were  left  to  yourself.  But  I  was  afraid  that 
other  influences  might  be  brought  to  bear  upon  you,  and  you 
might " 

"  Well,  what  ?  what  influences.  The.  V 

"  Your  father,  my  love.  I  was  afraid  he  would  try  to 
influence  you  against  me." 

"  No,  no,  Theophilus,  my  affection  for  you  would  remain 
the  same,  no  matter  what  Church  you  may  join.  I  am  not 
such  a  sectarian  as  all  that." 

"  Then  you  will  be  true  to  me  ?" 

"  Certainly  I  will !" 

''If — ^your  father  should  oppose  you?" 

"Yes." 

"But  if  he  forbids  your  marriage?" 

"  That  would  not  change  me  !" 

"And  if  my  parents  turn  against  me  ?" 

"  I  will  be  true  !" 

"  Heaven  bless  you,  Mary !  Though  all  others  forsake 
me,  I  shall  be  happy,  if  you  remain  steadfast !" 

"Never  fear,  Theophilus;  nothing  on  earth  could  alienate 
me  from  you — no,  not  even  your  unkindness  and  desertion. 
Affliction,  misfortune,  persecution,  would  add  sympathy  to 
love,  and  I  should  feel  it  to  be  my  highest  happiness  on 
earth  to  share  your  sorrows  with  you.  '  Naught  but  death 
shall  part  thee  and  me  !'  " 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  41 

^'  That  was  spoken  like  a  true  woman,  Mary.  And  now  I 
feel  satisfied.  I  know  not  what  trials  may  await  me,  but  I 
feel  that  the  promise  is  mine,  'As  thy  days,  so  shall  thy 
strength  be/  It  is  enough  for  me  to  have  a  good  conscience 
toward  God,  and  feel  that  my  best  earthly  friend  will  abide 
with  me  the  day  of  trial.  I  am  afraid  you  will  encounter 
your  father's  opposition.  Treat  him  kindly;  honor  him  as 
a  parent,  but " 

"  Be  true  to  Theophilus  !  You  need  not  have  any  doubts  : 
I  am  yours,  now  and  for  ever  V 

"  Farewell,  then,  Mary,  for  a  season  :  I  will  trust  you.'' 


^iv^t  ^it^ttiwg. 


THE  WORD  ^aMMERSE'^  NOT  IN  THE  BIBLE. 


THE    REASONS    GIVEN   BY   BAPTIST    WRITERS 
CONTRADICTED  BY  BAPTIST  WRITERS. 


THE   BABEL   OF  BAPTIST  BIBLE   REVISION 
OVERTHROWN  BY  ITS  OWN  BUILDERS. 


THE     MAJESTY     OE    TRUTH.  45 


FIRST    EVENING. 


On  Thursday  evening,  Mr.  Thomson  and  quite  a  number 
of  his  meml^ers,  together  with  many  of  the  Methodists  in 
Maryville,  met  at  the  parsonage.  It  was  soon  found  that, 
notwithstanding  it  had  been  intended  as  a  private  meeting 
only,  the  interest  manifested  in  the  community  would  com- 
pel the  party  to  repair  to  the  church,  near  by.  This  they 
did ;  and  after  an  earnest  prayer  to  the  Griver  of  light  and 
Source  of  truth,  Mr.  Mason  informed  the  assembly  that  the 
proposed  investigation  would  proceed  in  conversational  style. 
It  was  not,  he  said,  designed  to  be  a  public  affair,  but 
inasmuch  as  many  were  anxious  to  attend,  he  was  perfectly 
willing  that  all  should  do  so. 

'^I  have  read  the  book  you  gave  me,  Theophilus,''  said 
Mr.  Mason,  ^^  and  really  I  am  tempted  to  smile  at  your 
opinion  of  its  merits.  That  the  book  is  designed  to  operate 
upon  the  minds  of  the  young  is  very  evident,  for  there  are 
methods  of  argumentation  in  it  which  can  never  satisfy  a 
matured  mind.  No  doubt  many  a  young  lady  will  sympa- 
thize deeply  with  Theodosia  Ernest,  and  feel  that  her  cro&& 
was  very  heavy ;  and  perhaps  some  will  be  inclined  to 
follow  her  example,  in  breaking  off  from  her  own  people, 
and  joining  the  Baptist  Church,  under  the  overwhelming 
arguments  of  a  schoolmaster,  who  had  no  one  to  oppose  him . 
If  this  result  attends  the  book,  the  author  will  rejoice  over 


46  THEOPHILUS    WALTONj     OR, 

the  hosts  of  the  Pedobaptists.  It  is  a  pity,  however,  that  such 
an  earnest  seeker  of  truth  as  Theodosia  should  have  a  man 
for  her  guide  who  does  not  seem  to  be  very  fond  of  telling 
the  truth.  I  shall,  I  think,  before  we  have  gone  through 
the  subject,  give  you  irrefragable  proof  of  the  fact  that  the 
Pedobaptist  speakers  in  this  Baptist  drama  are  badly  posted 
up,  and  Pedobaptist  writers  generally  are  grossly  misre- 
presented. 

^^  There  is  one  remark  I  desire  to  make  just  here,  by  way 
of  introduction.  It  seems  to  be  a  favorite  point  with  the 
Baptists  to  make  the  '  eminent  Pedobaptist  writers'  destroy 
their  own  system.  This  is  done  over  and  over  again.  We 
hear  of  ^  concessions  of  Pedobaptist  divines,'  '  admissions  of 
learned  Pedobaptists,'  etc.,  and  out  of  these  partial,  frag- 
mentary quotations,  the  party-colored  coat  of  the  Baptist 
Joseph  is  made.  Now  I  intend,  in  a  great  measure,  to 
weigh  the  arguments  of  our  opponents ;  but  nevertheless  I 
shall  show  you  that  the  Bajytist  system,  can  he  more  readily 
destroyed  hy  Baptist  tvr iters  themselves,  than  perhaps  you 
may  at  this  moment  imagine.  If,  then,  differences  of 
opinion  among  Pedobaptists  on  some  points  considered 
unimportant  are  to  be  gathered  up,  and  passed  through  a 
Baptist  course  of  synthesis,  let  us  serve  them  the  same  way. 
They  afford  us  abundant  materials. 

"  You  have  doubtless  noticed,  Theophilus,  that  the  word 
immerse  is  not  in  the  English  Bible.  Have  you  ever 
inquired  for  the  reason?" 

'^  Yes,  sir.  President  Thomas,  of  the  State  University, 
who  is  a  Baptist  minister,  told  me  that  it  was  excluded  by 
special  order  of  King  James,  who  was  the  originator  of  our 
present  translation.'^ 

'^  Indeed  !  President  Thomas  showed  you  the  order  of 
the  king,  by  which  haptidzo  was  forbidden  to  be  trans- 
lated?" 


THE    MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  47 

^^  No,  sir ;  I  did  not  say  tJiat.  I  asked  him  if  tliere  was 
such  an  order,  and  he  said  the  word  haptidzo  was  not  men- 
tioned, but  that  it  was  included  under  the  Third  Rule, 
which  required  the  translators  to  retain  the  old  ecclesiastical 
wordsy  such  as  cJiurch,  which  they  were  forbidden  to  render 
congregation." 

^'But  President  Thomas  certainly  showed  you  his 
authority  for  saying  that  the  word  haptidzo  was  then  called 
an  old  ecclesiastical  word ;  did  he  not  V 

''No,  sir,  he  did  not." 

''And  did  he  give  you  no  authority  for  saying  that  King 
James  restricted  the  translators  with  reference  to  this 
word  V 

"  None  but  that  which  I  mentioned/' 

','But  that  surely  was  no  authority  at  all.  Before  he 
can  make  it  a  restriction,  he  must  prove  that  haptidzo  was 
regarded  as  an  ecclesiastical  word  in  the  time  of  King 
James.  If  he  does  that,  he  justifies  both  the  king  and 
the  translators  in  retaining  it ;  if  he  does  not  prove  it,  he 
cannot  prove  the  restriction.     That  is  very  clear.'' 

"  I  never  took  that  view  of  it  before ;  but  I  confess  that 
one  of  the  two  things  ought  to  be  done  :  either  prove  that 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  ago  haptidzo  was  believed  to  be 
an  ecclesiastical  word — that  is,  a  word  used  in  a  peculiar 
sense  in  the  New  Testament  ]  a  sense  in  some  way  or  other 
differing  from  its  ordinary  use — or  else  give  up  the  charge 
against  King  James." 

"Precisely  so.  And  now  to  show  you  how  Baptists 
argue  about  this  ordinance,  let  me  read  you  a  remark  or  two 
from  Bichard  Fuller,  a  Baptist  minister  in  Baltimore,  in  his 
book  on  Baptism,  page  12  :  '  TFe  have  nothing  to  do  with 
hapto.  The  Holy  Spirit  always,  in  speaking  of  the  ordi- 
nance, uses  one  single  word.  That  word  is  haptidzo.'  Now 
is  it  not  clear  as  day  that  the  Holy  Spirit  designed  to  make 


48  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

a  distinction  between  hapto  and  haptidzo,  if  the  first  is 
never  used  to  express  tlie  ordinance,  and  the  latter  is  inva- 
riably used  ?  And  if  haptidzo  was  set  apart  for  a  peculiar 
use  in  the  New  Testament,  how  would  it  be  possible  to 
designate  that  peculiar  use  if  both  words  were  translated 
immerse  V 

'^I  suppose,'^  said  Theophilus,  ^^it  might  be  said  in 
reply,  that  the  sense  of  the  passage  would  inform  the  reader 
where  the  ordinance  was  meant,  and  where  it  was  not.'' 

"  But  that  is  no  answer,''  replied  Mr.  Mason ;  ^'  for  if 
immerse  should  be  used  indiscriminately,  sometimes  for  the 
ordinance,  sometimes  to  express  a  secular  action,  why  was 
not  haptidzo  used  thus  in  the  Greek  ?  Is  it  not  a  signifi- 
cant fact  that  haptidzo  is  never  used  in  the  Neio  Testament 
to  exp7'ess  an  ordinary ,  secular  action  ?  And  is  this  a  mere 
chance,  if,  as  some  say,  the  verbs  are  identical  in  meaning  ? 
Now  I  think  you  will  see  in  a  moment,  that  to  translate 
haptidzo  by  the  same  word  which  is  used  to  render  hapto 
would  be  positively  contrary  to  the  mind  of  the  Sj^irit,  and 
a  profanation  of  the  term.  Unless  we  had  an  English 
word  which  could  be  appropriated  to  this  ordinance,  and  to 
7iotliing  else,  there  would  be  a  moral  necessity  for  transfer- 
ring it,  to  2^resei've  the  distinction  which  was  made  hy  God 
himself!  I  wish  you  to  bear  this  distinctly  in  mind,  for  we 
shall  have  a  use  for  the  fact  in  another  part  of  this  investi- 
gation. 

^'  But  now  let  me  show  you  the  harmony  that  prevails 
among  Baptist  writers  themselves  on  this  subject.  I  will 
follow  Theodosia's  advisers,  and  upset  Baptist  doctrines  by 
their  own  doctors.  Here  is  an  extract  from  the  lieport  of 
the  Board  of  Managers  of  the  ^American  and  Foreign 
Bible  Society,'  a  Baptist  institution  which  was  formed  by 
some  Baptist  members  of  the  ^American  Bible  Society.' 
They  seceded  from  this  latter  institution,  because  it  would 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  49 

not  consent  to  publish  a  Baptist  Bible  in  India.  Hear 
these  Baptist  Managers:  ^The  evils  which  have  accrued 
from  the  introduction  of  a  single  word,  (viz.,  baptize,) 
imposed  hy  foreign  infiuence  and  the  bigotry  of  an  earthly 
prince,  no  human  mind  can  compute.  Nearly  all  the  Euro- 
pean versions  subsequently  made  have  been  conformed  to 
the  principles  adopted  by  King  James's  translators;  and 
thus  a  word  has  been  perpetuated  from  generation  to  gene- 
ration, the  precise  meaning  of  lohich  none  but  the  learned 
could  with  certainty  ascertain.'  " 

^'That  is  very  strong  language,'^  said  Theophilus;  ^^but 
stop ;  let  me  get  a  clear  view  of  your  argument.  What  is  it 
you  propose  to  do  now  with  this  quotation  V 

"I  design  showing  you,''  said  Mr.  Mason,  ^Hhat  the 
assertion  that  King  James  required,  or  advised,  the  transfer 
instead  of  the  translation  of  baptidzo  into  English,  is  posi- 
tively untrue,  and  this  I  will  do  by  the  testimony  of  a 
learned  Baptist  writer.  In  the  second  place,  I  will  show 
you  that  the  word  was  never  translated  otherwise  than  it  is 
now,  before  the  time  of  King  James ;  this  I  will  do  by  the 
versions  themselves.  In  the  next  place  I  will  show  you,  by 
Baptists  themselves,  that  baptize  is  an  English  and  not  a 
Greek  word,  and  therefore  can  be  understood  by  others 
besides  ^  the  learned.'  " 

^'  Yery  well ;  proceed,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  "  I 
am  impatient  to  see  these  writers  helping  the  Pedobaptist 
cause.  I  have  always  thought  that  the  Baptists  were  united 
on  the  subject  of  baptism  at  least." 

^'And  there  I  will  convince  you  of  your  mistake.  Now, 
I  promised  to  produce  Baptist  testimony  to  prove  that  King 
James  did  not  place  the  word  baptize  in  the  Bible :  that  he 
did  not  require  the  translators  to  exclude  immerse.  Here  is 
a  book  entitled  ^  The  Annals  of  the  English  Bible,'  written 
by  Christopher  Anderson,  a  Baptist  in  Scotland.  That  you 
3 


50  THEOPHiLUs   ayalton;    or, 

may  read  for  yourself,  take  tlie  book,  and  turn  to  page  400, 
section  4:." 

''  Shall  I  begin  with  the  chapter  V'  asked  Theophilus. 
"Yes,  read  it  distinctly,  that  we  may  all  hear  it.'^ 
" '  Up  to  the  present  moment,  (the  accession  of  King 
James,)  the  history  of  the  English  Bible  had  maintained  a 
character  peculiar  to  itself.  Originating  with  no  mere 
patron,  whether  royal  or  noble,  the  undertaking  had  never 
yet  been  promoted  at  the  personal  expense  of  any  such  party. 
But  now,  in  regard  to  that  version  of  the  Sacred  Volume 
which  for  two  hundred  and  thirty  years  has  been  read  with 
delight  from  generation  to  generation,  and  proved  the  effect- 
ual means  of  knowledge,  holiness,  and  joy  to  millions,  it 
may  be  imagined  by  some,  as  there  was  now  another  and  a 
final  change,  that  our  history  must  at  last  change,  or,  in 
other  words,  forfeit  its  character.  ...  If  because 
that  a  dedication  to  James  the  First  of  England  has  been 
prefixed  to  many  copies,  though  not  to  many  others ;  and  if 
because  not  only  historians  at  their  desks,  but  lawyers  at  the 
bar,  and  even  judges  on  the  bench,  have  made  most  singular 
mistakes,  it  has  therefore  been  imagined  by  any  or  many 
that  the  present  version  of  our  Bible  was  either  suggested  by 
this  monarch,  or  that  he  was  at  any  personal  expense  in  the 
undertaking,  or  that  he  ever  issued  a  single  line  of  author- 
ity by  way  of  proclamation  with  respect  to  it,  it  is  more  than 
time  that  the  delusion  should  come  to  an  end.' '' 
"  Now,  what  do  you  think  of  that,  Theophilus  V 
"  I  confess,  sir,  that  I  am  astonished.  I  have  been  told 
repeatedly  by  President  Thomas  and  various  other  Baptist 
preachers,  that  King  James  not  only  originated  the  present 
version,  but  absolutely  forbade  the  translators  to  render 
haptidzo  in  English.^' 

'•  Now  turn  to  page  403,  and  you  will  find  that  he  says  the 
translation  originated  with  Dr.  John  Bainolds,  according  to  the 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  61 

account  wliicli  the  king  liimself  gives  of  the  matter.  On  the 
same  page  he  says  that  the  fifty-four  translators  were  selected 
for  the  king,  and  not  hy  him.  On  page  410,  he  says  that 
the  translation  was  not  an  afi"air  of  government,  not  a  royal 
undertaking ;  and  that  he  has  searched  in  vain  to  find  any 
evidence  that  the  king  paid  the  translators  for  their  labor. 
On  page  411,  he  says,  quoting  Dr.  Symonds,  that  Hhe  present 
version  appears  to  have  made  its  way,  without  the  interposi- 
tion of  any  authority  whatsoever.^  Now,  what  do  you  think 
of  these  facts  ?" 

^^  I  see  no  other  conclusion,  sir,  than  that  King  James  has 
been  wantonly  slandered  by  no  less  a  body  than  the  Ameri- 
can Baptist  Bible  Society — a  fact  which  I  see  here  proved 
hy  a  Baptist  witness." 

"  Let  us  rather  say,  Theophilus,  that  they  were  grievously 
mistaken.'' 

"  I  can  see  no  excuse  for  them,"  replied  Theophilus.  "  If 
they  know  the  facts  of  the  case,  as  they  profess  to  do,  it  is 
slander;  if  they  do  not  know  them,  their  ignorance  is  un- 
pardonable." 

"  Now,  having  proved  that  the  charge  of  suppressing  the 
meaning  of  haptidzo  is  untrue,  so  far  as  King  James  is  con- 
cerned, let  us  proceed  to  examine  whether  the  words  immerse 
and  immersion  have  ever  been  in  the  English  Bible.  There 
is  an  English  translation,  made  at  Rheims,  in  1582,  twenty- 
nine  years  before  King  James's.  Look  at  the  third  chapter 
of  Matthew,  and  tell  us  how  the  word  haptidzo  is  translated." 

"It  reads,  in  the  sixth  verse,  'and  were  haptized  of  him 
in  Jordan.'  " 

"Very  well.  It  is  not  immerse  tJiere.  Now,  take  this 
book.  It  is  the  English  Bible  translated  at  G-eneva,  in 
1557,  fifty -four  years  before  King  James's.  Bead  the 
Ssame  passage." 

''  'And  were  haptized  of  him  in  Jordan.' " 


52  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

''  We  liave  not  got  immerse  yet.  Try  again.  There  is 
Cranmer's  Bible,  translated  into  English  in  1539,  seventy-two 
years  before  King  James's.     Read  the  same  verse.'^ 

^^It  is  exactly  like  the  last — 'and  were  haptized  of  him  in 
Jordan.'  '^ 

*'  Let  us  try  again.  Here  is  Tyndale's  Bible,  translated 
into  English  in  1534,  seventy  -  seven  years  before  King 
James's.     Bead  Matt.  iii.  6.^' 

'^  It  is  exactly  like  the  rest — '  and  were  haptized  of  him  in 
Jordan.' '' 

^'  Well,  we  have  four  translations,  then,  agreeing  with 
ours.  Now,  let  us  go  back  to  the  first  complete  translation 
of  the  Bible  into  English.  It  was  made  by  Wiclif,  in  the 
year  1380,  tivo  hundred  and  thirty  years  before  King 
James's.     Read  the  same  verse,  just  as  it  stands  there." 

"  Wait  a  moment,  Mr.  Mason,  I  am  not  so  certain  that  I 
can  make  it  out.  The  spelling  is  so  odd  that  I  can  hardly 
tell  what  the  words  are." 

^'  Well,  spell  them,  and  I  will  help  you  to  unravel  the 
words." 

"  Well,  here  is  a  figure  that  looks  like  a  new  moon." 

"  That  is  a  character  used  for  'and.'  " 

"  'And  thei  werun  waischen  of  hym  in  iordan.' " 

"  'And  they  were  ivashed  of  him  in  Jordan.'  So  you  see 
haptidzo  is  here  translated  to  wash.  But,  if  you  read  the 
eleventh  verse,  you  will  find  hoth  wash  and  baptize." 

"  The  eleventh  verse  says :  '  I  icash  you  in  water,  into 
penance  -,  but  he  that  shall  come  after  me  is  stronger  than 
I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear :  he  shall  baptize 
you  in  the  Holy  Grhost  and  fire.'  " 

"  So  much  for  Wiclif,  then.  Now  here  is  an  extract 
from  a  MS.  in  English,  made  about  1340,  more  than  two 
hundred  and  seventy  years  before  King  James's.  The  ex- 
tract is  given  verbatim  from  the  first  chapter  of  Mark ;  it 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  53 

reads  as  follows :  ^  John  was  in  ye  deserte,  hajyfi/sande 
pcliande  ye  baptyme  of  penaunce  in  remyssyon  of  synes/ 
Jolin  was  in  the  desert  haptizing,  and  preaching  the  haj)tism 
of  penance  in  remission  of  sins/' 

^'  That's  enough,  Mr.  Mason/'  said  Theophilus.  "  If  the 
word  baptism  has  been  in  our  language  upwards  of  Jive  hun- 
dred yearS;  I  should  think  it  a  positive  sin  to  exclude  it  now/' 

'^  But  that  is  not  all.  I  have  the  evidence  here,  that  until 
a  few  Baptists  in  New  York  published  tJieir  Bible,  not  twenty 
years  ago,  if  we  except  Alexander  Campbell's  New  Testa- 
ment, no  version  of  the  Scriptures  in  English  has  ever  had  im- 
merse substituted  for  hajDtize.    Do  you  want  any  more  proof?" 

"  Not  a  line.  The  thing  is  as  clear  as  noonday.  But  let 
me  ask  you  whether  the  English  translators  have  had  any 
precedents  for  trans/errhg  hapddzo  into  their  language  ?" 

"  Most  certainly  they  had.  The  Spanish  translation,  made 
in  1556,  has  hautizar.  The  French,  in  1535,  has  hajpther. 
The  Italian,  in  1562,  has  hattezzare.  Beza's  Latin  Testa- 
ment, in  1556,  has  haptlzo.  The  Latin  Vulgate,  in  the 
fourth  century,  has  haptizo.  The  Basmuric,  in  the  third 
century,  has  haptizo.  And  the  Sahidic,  in  the  second  cen- 
tury, has  hap)tizo.  Now,  then,  we  have  six  English  and 
seven  foreign  versions,  all  made  before  the  time  of  King 
James,  in  all  of  which  the  G^reek  word  haptidzo  has  been 
adopted  to  express  the  idea  of  baptism.  Now,  let  me  ask 
you,  if  the  translators  of  our  present  version,  with  thirteen 
examples  before  them,  some  of  them  reaching  back  fifteen 
hundred  years  before  their  time,  could  have  done  otherwise 
than  use  the  same  word  which  had,  by  the  concurrence  of  all 
ages,  expressed  the  ordinance  of  baptism  V 

"  I  am  compelled  to  admit  that  they  were  bound  to  do  as 
they  did.  I  am  satisfied  on  this  point.  But  you  promised 
to  refute  the  position  that  the  word  baptize  can  only  be  un- 
derstood by  the  learned.     I  want  to  hear  your  evidence/' 


54  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

*'  I  have  plenty  of  it.  I  sliall  bring  Baptist  evidence  to 
prove  that  it  is  an  English  word,  and  therefore  can  be  un- 
derstood by  Englishmen.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Dowling,  a  distin- 
guished Baptist,  says :  ^  The  word  baptize  is  itself,  to  all 
intents  and  purposes,  an  English  word.'  The  Kev.  Dr.  Ide, 
Baptist,  says  :  '  I  suppose  that  baptize  is  the  only  English 
word  by  which  you  can  translate  haptidzo.^  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Williams,  Baptist,  says  :  '  On  the  score  of  age,  the  word 
baptize  is  probably  some  six  centuries  older,  as  an  English 
word,  than  the  term  immerse,  proposed  to  replace  it.'  Dr. 
Ide  says,  ^  It  is  eight  hundred  years  older,  as  a  native  English 
citizen,  than  immerse,'  Here  are  three  Baptist  Doctors  of 
Divinity  who  affirm  that  baptize  is  an  English  word,  and  that 
it  has  been  in  the  language  many  years  longer  than  immerse. 
If  they  are  right,  the  Managers  of  the  Baptist  Bible  Society 
are  wrongs 

At  this  stage  of  the  proceedings,  Mr.  Ellis,  who  was  in 
the  audience,  arose  and  addressed  Mr.  Mason,  in  a  tremulous 
voice,  exhibiting  marks  of  strong  excitement : 

^'  Have  you  quoted  those  remarks  of  Baptist  ministers 
from  their  own  icritings,  Mr.  Mason  V 

^^  I  have  given  them,  Mr.  Ellis,  just  as  I  find  them  in  a 
work  written  by  the  Rev.  N.  H.  Lee,  of  Kentucky.  The 
work  is  styled,  '  Immersionists  against  the  Bible.' " 

"  Is  Mr.  Lee  a  Baptist  or  a  Pedobaptist,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

^^  He  is  a  Methodist  minister,  sir." 

'^Ah,  I  thought  so  !     Pedobaptist  testimony  !" 

^^  Do  you  doubt  the  correctness  of  the  extracts,  Mr.  Ellis  ?" 

"  It  is  enough,  Mr.  Mason,  that  they  are  from  a  Pedobap- 
tist source." 

^^  Indeed !  and  cannot  Pedobaptists  tell  the  truth,  Mr. 
Ellis  ?" 

^'  I  only  wished  to  know,  sir,"  replied  Mr.  Ellis,  ^^  whethei 
you  were  using  your  oivn  books  or  om^s.     I  am  satisfied.'^ 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  55 

^^  If  you  will  deny  tliat  these  extracts  are  genuine,  I  will 
produce  the  original  documents,  as  I  have  them  here.  I 
was  only  reading  from  this  little  volume  because  I  found  it 
more  convenient.  Will  you  step  this  way,  Mr.  Ellis,  and 
verify  these  extracts  for  your  own  satisfaction  V^ 

''  I  have  told  you,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  "  that  I 
am  satisfied.     Why  do  you  trouble  me  further  with  it  V 

"  Because  you  seem  desirous  of  making  the  impression 
that  the  passages  I  have  quoted  are  not  genuine.  You  must 
either  admit  them  to  be  correct,  or  else  compare  them  with 
the  originals." 

To  this  Mr.  Ellis  made  no  reply.  For  some  moments  a 
profound  silence  prevailed.     At  last  Mr.  Mason  said  : 

'^  I  take  it  for  granted  that  you  admit  the  quotations  to  bo 
correct.  Now,  Mr.  Ellis,  will  you  permit  me  to  ask  you  a 
question  ?" 

Mr.  Ellis  was  evidently  confused.  He  did  not  know  how 
to  refuse,  and  yet  feared  to  consent,  not  knowing  the  purport 
of  the  question.     Presently,  however,  he  replied  : 

"  I  am  not  here  to  take  part  in  your  discussion,  nor  yet  to 
be  questioned — still,  if  it  is  reasonable,  I  will  answer  your 
inquiry." 

"  Certainly,  Mr.  Ellis,  you  have  a  right  to  ask  any  ques- 
tion you  please,  and  so  has  any  other  individual  present;  and 
as  you  endeavored  to  cast  suspicion  upon  my  authorities,  it 
is  only  just  and  fair  that  you  should  acknowledge  your  mis- 
take. This  I  understand  you  as  having  done,  by  waiving 
the  comparison.  And  now,  Mr.  Ellis,  as  you  quoted  and 
read  several  extracts  from  Pedobaptist  writers  on  Sabbath 
last,  in  your  sermon,  did  you  read  them  out  of  Pedobaptist 
or  Baptist  books  ?" 

^' What  is  your  object  in  asking  that  question?"  asked 
Mr.  Ellis. 

*^  Simply  for  my  own  information ;   as  I  have  been  in- 


56  THEOPHILUS    WALTONj     OR, 

formed  that  several  important  discrepancies  have  been  dis- 
covered by  several  of  your  hearers/' 

"  Then,  if  other  persons  ai-e  to  be  brought  in  to  implicate 
me,  I  do  not  feel  bound  to  answer.'' 

"  Indeed,  Mr.  Ellis,  you  owe  it  to  your  own  reputation  to 
reply.  If  those  quotations  were  made  from  your  books, 
their  compilers  are  responsible,  but  you  are  convicted  of 
doing  the  thing  which  you  objected  to  me  just  now.  If  you 
used  the  original  works,  then  you  are  certainly  responsible 
for  various  omissions,  and  phrases  interpolated,  in  the  quota- 
tions." 

This  was  a  disagreeable  dilemma  for  Mr.  Ellis.  He  be- 
came agitated,  and  finally  withdrew  from  the  church,  fol- 
lowed by  several  of  his  friends,  without  making  any  reply  to 
the  question  of  Mr.  Mason. 

^'Now,  my  friends,"  said  the  Methodist  minister,  ^'  I  feel 
constrained  to  say  that  I  deeply  regret  what  has  just  occurred.  * 
I  could  not  feel  it  in  my  heart  to  rejoice  over  the  mortifica- 
tion of  a  minister  of  the  gospel.  But  you  will  bear  me 
witness  that  I  am  justified  in  all  I  have  said  or  done  on  this 
occasion." 

^^And  now,  Theophilus,  let  us'  return  to  the  matter  in 
hand.  We  have  seen  that  three  Baptist  ministers  of  high 
position  unite  in  declaring  that  haptize  is  an  English,  and 
not  a  Greek  word.  Now,  to  find  the  meaning  of  an  English 
word,  where  shall  we  look  ?" 

''  In  the  English  dictionary,  of  course,"  said  Theophilus. 

'^  Well,  then,  examine  Webster's  definition  of  the  word." 

^^  I  remember  that  very  distinctly.  He  says  it  means  to 
administer  the  sacrament  of  baptism,  to  christen ;  and  then 
he  proceeds  to  say  that  this  is  done  by  sprinkling  and  im- 
mersion.    But  was  not  Webster  a  Pedobaptist  ?" 

^^And  wha't  if  he  was  ?  Do  you  suppose  the  best  lexico- 
grapher of  our  language  would  risk  his  fame  by  falsely  defin- 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  57 

ing  a  word  ?  But^  if  you  desire  it,  I  will  give  you  some 
other  testimony  in  proof  of  the  fact  that  baptize,  as  an 
English  word,  does  not  mean  immersion.  Dr.  Lynd,  a  dis- 
tinguished Baptist  minister,  says  :  '  There  can  be  no  doubt 
that  this  word,  (baptize,)  in  English  religious  literature,  has 
become  generic.  It  would  be  time  lost,  on  this  occasion,  to 
argue  this  point  with  any  one  who  may  be  bold  enough  to 
deny  it.  The  word  is  currently  used  for  sprinhling  by  the 
largest  part  of  the  Christian  world.'  So  says  Dr.  Lynd. 
Now  let  us  hear  Dr.  John  L.  Waller,  one  of  the  greatest 
men  the  Baptists  ever  had  in  this  country.  '  It  is  vain  to 
reason,'  says  he,  ^  with  the  individual  who  seriously  insists 
that  baptize  means  to  immerse ;  or  that  it  has  any  modal 
meaning  whatever,  since  the  Elizabethan  age.  We  might 
as  well  attempt  to  teach  logic  to  an  orangoutang  as  to  impart 
the  laws  of  language  to  the  man  who  would  gravely  dispute 
a  position  so  self-evident.  Such  an  individual  is  surely  de- 
livered over  to  believe  a  lie.'  " 

"Well,  well!"  exclaimed  Theophilus,  "you  are  getting 
the  Doctors  into  a  difficulty,  sure  enough  !" 

"  Yes,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  and  I  shall  get  them  into 
worse  difficulties  still.  To  complete  this  testimony,  let  us 
hear  the  Bev.  Dr.  Cone,  President  of  the  Bible  Union :  "  Since 
the  English  word  baptize,  according  to  our  standard  lexico- 
graphers, means  to  sprinJde,  pour,  asperse,  christen,  etc.,  the 
American  Bible  Union  must  come  up  to  the  help  of  the 
Lord  against  the  mighty.'  Here,  then,  we  have  three 
Baptist  Doctors  who  assert  that  the  word  baptize  does 
unquestionably  mean  something  else  besides  immerse.  But 
this  is  not  all.  One  of  the  most  distinguished  Baptist 
divines  declares  that  it  is  wrong  to  preacli  immersion  I 
Hear  Dr.  Cone  again  :  '  He  (Dr.  Cone)  has  dared  to  say 
from  this  pulpit  again  and  again,  that  Christian  baptism  is 
immersion  only;  and  that  if  it  is  right  to  preach  it,  it  is 
3* 


58  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

riglit  to  print  it,  to  print  it  in  the  Bible ;  for,  if  it  is  not  in 
the  Bible,  we  have  no  right  to  preach  it  or  print  it  as 
a  part  of  God's  revealed  will  to  man/  Immersion  is  not  in 
the  Bible,  and,  therefore,  according  to  Baptist  testimony, 
every  minister  who  preaches  it,  as  God's  revealed  will  to 
man,  is  positively  doing  wrong  !" 

''  You  are  making  a  strong  case  of  it,  Mr.  Mason/'  said 
Theophilus.  '^  Let  me  have  those  quotations  again.  I  wish 
to  place  them  side  by  side,  that  I  may  look  at  them  at  my 
leisure." 

"  Here  they  are  in  a 


<*I  suppose  that  baptize  is  the         "There  can  be  no  doubt   that 

only  English  xoord  by  which  you  this   word,    {baptize,)    in   English 

can  translate  haptidzo."    "  It  {bap-  literature,  has  become  generic.'^'' — 

tize)  is  eight  hundred  years  older,  Rev.  Dr.  Lynd. 
as  a  native  English  citizen,   than        "It  is  in  vain  to  reason  with 

immerse." — Rev.  Dr.  He.  the  individual   who   seriously  in- 

''  On  the  score  of  age,  the  word  sists  that  baptize  means  to  immerse, 

baptize  is  probably  some  six  cen-  .      .       .       Such   an  individual  is 

turies  older,  as  an  English  ivord,  surely  deliver ed  over  to  believe  a  lie. ^^ 

than  the  term  immerse,  proposed  — Rev.  Dr.  John  L.  Waller. 
to  replace  it." — Rev.  Dr.  Williams.         "  The  English  loord  baptize,  ac- 

^'■The  word  baptize  is  itself,  to  all  cording  to  our  standard  lexicogra- 

intcnts   and  purposes,   an   English  phers,    means    to    sprinkle,   pour, 

word." — Rev.  Dr.  Dowling.  asperse,  christen,    etc." — Rev.   Dr. 

Cone. 

"If  it  (immerse)  is  not  in  the  Bible,  we  have  no  right  to 
PREACH  IT." — Rev.  Dr.  Cone. 

^'-  There  you  have  a  record,  outside  of  Pedobaptist  autho- 
rity, proving  beyond  a  question  that  sprinkling  and  pouring 
are  valid  modes  of  baptism  !  The  word  baptize  is  positively 
said  to  be  an  English  word,  and  several  hundred  years  older 
than  iminerse;  if  this  is  true,  which  no  sane  man,  acquainted 
with  the  facts,  can  deny,  it  is  self-evident  that  English  lexi- 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  59 

cograpliers  are  tlie  men  to  give  its  definition ;  and  we  have 
just  seen  that  Baptist  Doctors  and  standard  dictionaries 
unite  in  declaring  that  it  is  a  generic  word,  having  no  modal 
signification  whatever,  but  means  to  sprinkle  and  pour  water 
upon  the  subject,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy 
Spirit/' 

^^  Indeed,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  ^^  I  see  no  escape 
from  such  a  conclusion.  How  is  it  possible  that  these  Bap- 
tist teachers  should  war  with  their  own  authorities  in  per- 
sisting to  declare  that  baptize  means  only  to  immerse  ?  I 
acknowledge  that  I  thought  the  Pedobaptist  writers  quoted  in 
^  Theodosia'  condemned  their  own  practice,  but  I  find  here 
that  Baptist  writers  exonerate  them  completely,  so  that,  after 
all,  Pedobaptist  ministers  are  not  hypocritical  deceivers ! 
What  they  have  yielded  to  the  Baptists  is  repaid  to  them 
with  compound  interest !  But  I  am  satisfied  on  this  branch 
of  the  argument.  You  have  mentioned  the  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society,  and  the  American  Bible  Union ;  now 
I  have  contributed  several  times  to  both  Societies,  but  I  am 
not  certain  that  I  understand  precisely  their  object  in  setting 
up  an  independent  organization.  Will  you  give  us  some 
light  on  that  subject  ?" 

'^  I  have  the  records  here  before  me — the  genuine  original 
records  of  the  Baptists  themselves.  If  any  one  desires  to 
gee  them,  I  will  place  them  in  his  hands.  I  am  going  to 
give  a  brief  statement  of  this  matter,  every  particular  of 
which  I  am  ready  to  prove.  Well,  then,  prior  to  1835,  all 
the  Protestant  denominations  were  united  in  printing  and 
publishing  the  Bible,  in  English  and  in  foreign  languages. 
The  association  was  called  the  ^American  Bible  Society/ 
The  authorized  version,  as  it  is  commonly  called — that  is, 
King  James's  translation — was  published  without  note  or 
comment.  '  By  this   union  of   Christians  in  spreading  the 


60  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    Oil, 

word  of  God,  hundreds  of  thousands  of  copies  were  given  to 
the  poor  and  indigent,  and  numerous  translations  were  made 
on  the  basis  of  our  own.  This  noble  institution,  which  has 
deserved  and  still  deserves  the  aid  and  the  benedictions  of 
every  Christian  in  the  world,  and  has  been  blessed  of  God  in 
a  remarkable  manner,  had  contributed  several  thousand  dollars 
to  the  publication  of  a  Bible  in  the  Burmese  language. 
This  translation  was  made  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Judson,  a  Baptist 
minister,  and  missionary  in  Burmah.  In  1835,  a  Mr. 
Pearce,  an  English  Baptist  missionary  in  India,  had  pre- 
pared a  translation  in  the  Bengalee  tongue,  but  was  refused 
assistance  in  printing  it  by  the  Calcutta  Bible  Society,  on 
the  ground  that  he  had  rendered  baptize  by  a  Bengalee 
word  meaning  only  to  immerse.  Mr.  Pearce  thereupon 
wrote  to  the  American  Bible  Society,  giving  a  statement  of 
the  facts,  and  desired  aid,  inasmuch  as  the  Society  had 
patronized  Dr.  Judson's  version,  which  had  rendered  the 
yforA precisely  as  he  had  done!" 

"  Stop,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus ;  "  is  this  the  Dr. 
Judson  who  turned  Baptist  after  he  had  started  on  his 
journey  to  India?" 

"  The  very  same  man/'  replied  Mr.  Mason. 

^^And  he  printed  a  Baptist  Bible  in  Burmese  with  the 
funds  of  Pedobaptist  denominations  ?" 

"  He  certainly  did  in  part,  as  the  Baptists  were  not  very 
large  contributors  to  the  Society." 

^'And  did  he  give  no  information  of  the  fact  to  the 
American  Bible  Society  V 

"  Not  a  word." 

^'You  astonish  me,  Mr.  Mason,"  replied  Theophilus. 
"  Why,  sir,  this  was  downright  dishonesty !" 

^'  Softly,  Theophilus;  Dr.  Judson  was  regarded  as  a  pious 
man." 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  61 

"  So  was  Loyola,  the  founder  of  the  Jesuits ;  and  I  have 
never  read  any  thing  about  him  worse  than  this  pious  fraud 
of  the  Baptist  missionary/' 

^'  Come,  come,  Theophilus,  let  us  call  it  inconsistency. 
Dr.  Judson  is  highly  esteemed  among  the  Baptists  of  this 
country.^' 

^'I  cannot  help  that,  Mr.  Mason.  Truth  is  truth,  and 
if  your  statements  are  correct.  Dr.  Judson  was  certainly 
guilty  of  something  worse  than  an  error  of  judgment.  He 
knew  that  the  society,  as  such,  was  opposed  to  immersionist 
translations ;  and  yet,  knowing  this,  he  used  their  money  to 
make  one,  at  the  same  time  concealing  the  fact  from  them. 
If  I  were  a  lawyer,  and  had  a  client  charged  with  obtaining 
goods  under  false  pretences,  and  such  evidence  was  produced 
in  court  against  him,  I  should  abandon  his  cause."" 

'•'■  I  will  not  pretend  to  say  what  I  think  about  Dr.  Jud- 
son's  conduct  in  this  matter.  It  is  between  him  and  his 
Grod.  But  here  are  the  facts.  But  to  return.  The  Ameri- 
can Bible  Society  immediately  disavowed  all  connection  with 
the  Burmese  version,  and  then  some  of  the  Baptist  mem- 
bers, not  all  of  them,  immediately  withdrew,  and  formed  the 
American  and  Foreign  Bible  Society.  Dr.  S.  H.  Cone  was 
elected  President.  Now  let  us  hear  his  testimony  as  to  the 
ohject  of  this  society.  He  says :  'The  American  and 
Foreign  Bible  Society  was  organized  to  vindicate  a  principle; 
and  in  accordance  with  this  principle,  haptidzo  and  its  cog- 
nates should  be  rendered  by  words  signifying  immerse, 
immersion,'  etc.  This  was  to  be  done  not  only  in  foreign 
tongues,  but  also  in  English.  But,  after  several  years' 
effort.  Dr.  Cone  and  his  party  pressing  the  question  of 
printing  immerse  in  the  English  Bible,  the  society  shrank 
from  their  original  purpose,  and  Dr.  Cone  seceded  again, 
and,  with  his  followers,  formed  the  'American  Bible  Union.' 
'  The  Baptists,'  savs  he,  '  will  not  allow  immerse,  immersion, 


62  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

etc.,  to  have  a  place  in  the  New  Testament/  Therefore  he 
sounded  the  trumpet,  to  marshal  the  Baptist  host  who  were 
of  his  opinion,  in  order  to  put  it  there — to  print  immer- 
sion IN  THE  Bible — to  do  that  which  he  charges  the  Baptist 
Bible  Society  with  being  either  ashamed  or  afraid  to  do." 

^'  Do  you  mean  to  say,  Mr.  Mason,  that  the  Bible  Union 
was  formed  in  order  to  get  immerse  in  the  Bible  ?" 

"  I  certainly  do,  Theophilus ;  and  I  have  here  a  score  of 
witnesses,  all  Baj)ttsfs,  to  prove  the  fact.'^ 

"  Why,  Mr.  Mason,  Mr.  Ellis  says  that  there  are  several 
denominations — some  of  them  and  the  majority  of  them 
Pedobaptists — engaged  in  that  work.'^ 

"  Mr.  Ellis  cannot  prove  that  the  Bible  Union  is  approved 
by  one  Pedobaptist  denomination.  There  may  have  been 
individuals  concerned  in  translating  and  revising,  but  the 
whole  thing  is  condemned  by  Pedobaptists  everywhere.  Do 
not  misunderstand  me.  I  distinctly  assert  that  they  have 
never  offered  to  j^lace  any  book  in  the  New  Testament  in  the 
hands  of  Pedobaptist  translators,  if  the  tvord  haptidzo  occ^irs 
in  such  hook.  The  whole  assertion  that  Pedobaptists  have 
the  liberty  to  render  the  word  as  they  please,  is  absolutely 
untrue.'' 

"  Why,  Mr.  Mason,  I  heard  Mr.  Ellis  say  the  other  day 
that  the  whole  matter  was  so  fairly  arranged  that  he  would 
not  be  surprised  if  haptidzo  were  translated  jyoiir  or  sprinkle j 
so  great  was  the  preponderance  of  Pedobaptists  over  Baptists 
in  that  society.'' 

^^Alas  !  Theophilus,  I  am  at  a  loss  what  to  say.  If  Mr. 
Ellis  knows  the  true  condition  of  the  '  Bible  Union,'  he  is 
without  excuse  ;  if  he  does  not,  he  has  been  grossly  deceived. 
At  all  events,  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  with  the  whole 
version  the  Pedobaptists  have  any  thing  whatever  to  do.  It 
is  a  Baptist  society;  framed  for  the  purpose  of  putting 
immerse    in    the    Bible;    and   has    at   last   been   virtually 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  63 

dissolved,   without     having    the    face     to    accomplish     its 
designs/' 

"  Indeed  !  Is  it  abandoned  ?  I  gave  five  dollars  toward 
it  not  three  weeks  ago/' 

"You  know  that  Dr.  McClay,  the  most  efficient  man  in 
the  society,  who  was  elected  President  after  Dr.  Cone's 
death,  has  resigned,  confessing  that  he  was  disgusted  with 
the  Union  1" 

"  No,  I  did  not  know  it.'' 

"Well,  here  is  his  letter,  in  a  Baptist  paper.  He 
charges  the  society  with  waste,  extravagance,  ignorance,  and 
positive  dishonesty,  or,  to  say  the  least,  ivant  of  candor. 
He  declares  that  after  all  their  professions  of  learning  and 
competency  for  the  work,  the  persons  who  are  engaged  in  it, 
with  two  exceptions  only,  are  positively  unqualified  for  the 
task  of  revision." 

"And  this  too  after  being  seveii  years  engaged  in  it? 
having  upwards  of  forti/  men  in  employ  ?" 

"That  is  disputed,  Theophilus.  Dr.  McClay  says  that 
there  have  never  been  more  than  twenty-two  engaged 
in  revision ;  and  only  two  of  these  properly  qualified. 
Finally,  a  few  weeks  since  the  whole  concern  was  placed  in 
the  hands  of  two  men,  where  the  Bible  will  doubtless 
undergo  a  very  harmless  inspection.  Bead  this  article,  pub- 
lished in  the  ^Christian  Chronicle,'  a  Baptist  paper  in 
Philadelphia." 

"  'Bible  Unionism  is  a  failure,  and  nothing  else.  Its 
best  friends  have  deserted  it,  having  no  confidence  in  it. 
Its  translations  are  simply  ludicrous.  It  has  now  come  to  a 
stand  for  want  of  funds,  of  friends,  and  confidence  in  car- 
rying out  its  own  principles.  It  has  come  square  up  to  the 
word  haptidzo,  and  knows  not  whether  to  translate  it  or  not : 
but  death  follows  in  either  case.  All  this  is  a  good  reason 
for  placing  the  work  in  the  hands  of  Professors  Hackett 


64  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

and  Conantj  wliere  all  will  be  safe  for  the  next  twenty 
years/ 

"So  you  see,  Tlieophilus,  that  the  Baptists  themselves 
dare  not  print  immerse  in  the  English  Bible,  and  conse- 
quently, as  Dr.  Cone  says,  they  ought  not  to  preach  immer- 
sion as  a  part  of  God's  revealed  will  to  man,  unless  it  is  in 
the  Bible;  every  Baptist  preacher  who  does  preach  it  is 
positively  guilty,  Baptists  themselves  being  judges/' 

'^Tliat  is  certainly  a  just  conclusion,  Mr.  Mason,"  said 
Theophilus.  ''Now,  I  have  one  word  more  to  ask  you 
about  the  matter  of  translating.  They  tell  me  that  King 
James  would  not  allow  any  Baptists  to  be  placed  among 
the  translators  of  our  present  version.     Is  that  true  V 

"  Not  a  word  of  it.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  trans- 
lators, so  far  from  being  selected  by,  were  really  independent 
of,  the  king's  authority.  With  all  his  pedantry,  James  was 
too  much  addicted  to  hunting,  and  similar  sports,  to  occupy 
his  mind  with  any  thing  appertaining  to  the  Bible.  He  had, 
besides,  something  else  to  do  than  to  look  after  the  trans- 
lators. His  kingdom  was  not  in  the  most  peaceful  condition, 
and  when  he  met  the  Hampdon  Court  Conference,  where  the 
revision  was  determined  upon,  he  had  not  heen  legally  recog^ 
nized  as  King  of  England.  That  conference  could  not  be, 
therefore,  an  official  body.  But,  as  we  have  seen  all  that 
established  by  Baptist  testimony,  we  need  not  repeat  it. 
Now,  as  to  the  question  whether  there  were  any  Baptists 
among  the  translators,  let  me  first  ask  you  what  you  mean  by 
a  Baptist  ?" 

''  Well,  let  me  see ;  I  suppose  a  man  who  has  been  baptized 
on  profession  of  his  faith  by  immersion  is  a  Baptist." 

"  Is  that  all  that  it  takes  to  make  a  Baptist  ?  If  so,  Mr. 
Sims,  who  is  a  member  of  the  Methodist  Church,  in  Mary- 
ville,  is  a  Baptist ;  for  he  was  baptized  precisely  in  the  man- 
ner you  describe." 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  65 

'^  Well,  no;  I  suppose  lie  must  reject  infant  baptism,  also/' 

^' Would  he  theu  be  a  Baptist?  Would  Mr.  Ellis  call 
Mr.  Sims  a  Baptist  if  lie  should  avow  opposition  to  ir  fant 
baptism  ?  Would  he  commune  with  him  at  the  Lord's 
Table  V 

^^  No,  sir,  I  suppose  not." 

'^  Well,  then,  to  be  a  Baptist^  is  to  belong  to  a  Baptist 
church,  is  it  not  V 

"Yes,  sir;  that  strikes  at  the  root  of  the  matter." 

"  Well,  then,  with  that  definition  of  the  word  Baptist,  I 
acknowledge  that  there  was  not  a  single  one  among  the 
translators,  and  for  the  best  of  reasons.  There  teas  not  a 
Baptist  in  England  ichen  our  version  of  the  Bible  teas  made. 
Of  course,  if  they  were  ?iot  there,  they  could  not  be  ap- 
pointed I" 

"  You  surprise  me,  Mr.  Mason  !  No  Baptists  in  England 
when  our  translation  was  made?  Why,  sir,  Mr.  Ellis  has 
wept  in  the  pulpit  over  the  martyrdom  of  Baptists  in  the 
time  of  Queen  Elizabeth  I" 

"So  he  may  have  done.  Tears  have  frequently  been 
spent  about  imaginary  evils.  Mr.  Ellis  is  not  the  first  to 
weep  over  fictions." 

"  But  where  do  you  get  the  proof  to  support  your  decla- 
ration ?" 

"  Where  do  I  get  the  proof  ?  Where  should  I  get  it,  if 
not  from  the  Baptists  themselves?  Their  historians  cer- 
tainly ought  to  tell  the  truth  in  their  own  defence.  I  could 
show  you  proofs  from  Dr.  Wall,  and  other  Pedobaptists ;  but 
I  prefer  to  use  their  own  histories.  Here  is  Crosby's  History 
of  the  English  Baptists.  Turn  to  pages  148,  149,  vol.  i.. 
and  read  the  place  I  have  marked." 

^^^  Their  (the  Baptists')  first  distinct  churc\  in  our  na- 
tion was  formed  out  of  the  Independent  Church  in  London, 
whereof  Mr.  Henry  Jacob  was  pastor  from  1616  to  1624, 


66  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

wlien  lie  went  to  Virginia,  and  Mr.  Jolm  Latlirop  was  chosen 
in  his  room.  But  nine  years  after,  several  persons  in  the 
society,  finding  that  the  congregation  kept  not  to  their  first 
principles  of  separation ;  and  being  also  convinced  that  hap- 
tisni  was  not  to  he  administered  to  infants,  hut  such  only  as 
professed  faith  in  Christ,  desired  and  obtained  liberty,  and 
formed  themselves  into  a  distinct  church,  September  12, 
1633,  having  Mr.  John  Spisbury  for  their  minister.^ '' 

"  Then,  it  is  very  clear,  Theophilus,  that  if  the  first  Baptist 
church  in  England  was  formed  in  1633,  and  a  man  must  be- 
long to  the  Baptist  Church,  otherwise  he  is  not  a  Baptist, 
King  James  could  not  appoint  men  from  a  Church  that 
had  no  existence  in  his  realm  !  This  is  a  final  answer  to  all 
complaints  on  that  score." 

'^  I  give  it  up,  Mr.  Mason.  The  case  is  made  out  from 
their  own  witnesses." 

^'Nor  is  that  all,  Theophilus.  Here  is  a  curious  little 
book,  published  in  the  year  1689,  in  London.  It  is  the 
Baptist  ^  Confession  of  Faith.'  " 

^^A  Baptist  'Confession  of  Faith!'  Why,  Mr.  Mason,  I 
thought  the  Bible  was  their  Confession  of  Faith  !" 

'^  There  you  have  been  misled  again.  This  is  the  genuine 
book  itself,  published  by  order  of  a  Baptist  Assembly  of 
Messengers  and  Elders  from  One  Hundred  Churches  in  Eng- 
land and  Wales.  It  is  quite  an  old  book,  and  as  the  authors 
of  it  were  living  in  the  times  of  which  they  write,  they  can- 
not be  in  error.  Look  on  page  3  of  the  preface  to  '  The 
Judicious  Eeader,'  and  you  will  find,  that  after  ten  years' 
existence  in  England,  they  had  gathered  only  seven  congre- 
gations in  London ;  and  being,  as  they  say,  misrepresented 
in  their  doctrines,  these  seven  congregations  put  forth,  in 
the  year  1613,  a  Confession  of  Faith,  in  which  they  tell  us 
they  have  conformed  as  far  as  possible  to  the  Confession  of 
Faith  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.     This  original  Confes- 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  67 

sion  was  reconsidered,  and  put  forth  again  in  1689,  in  the 
form  you  see  it  there.  Now,  the  fact  I  wish  to  call  your 
attention  to  is  this  :  In  1643,  they  had  but  seven  congrega- 
tions in  England,  ten  years  after  their  origin,  and  forty  years 
after  the  Bible  was  translated  by  King  James's  translators. 
Suppose  that  these  seven  congregations  had  been  in  exist- 
ence when  the  version  was  made  :  do  you  suppose  that  there 
was  one  man  among  them  sufficiently  learned  in  Greek  and 
Hebrew  to  become  a  translator  ?  If  now,  in  the  nineteenth 
century,  when  they  have  colleges,  and  universities,  and 
scholars  by  the  thousand,  they  can  only  gather,  with  all  their 
zeal  and  money,  two  men  who  are  considered  by  themselves 
qualified  for  the  task,  is  it  not  preposterous  to  suppose  that 
they  had  such  men  then,  when  there  was  not  a  Baptist  col- 
lege in  the  world  V* 

"It  cannot  be  denied,  Mr.  Mason.  All  the  talk  about 
Baptists  being  shut  out,  and  having  no  hand  in  the  matter, 
is  mere  gammon.     I  am  convinced  of  that.'' 

''  Well,  then,  let  us,  as  the  lawyers  say,  sw^n  up  our  argu- 
ment. It  is  growing  late,  and  perhaps  some  of  the  audience 
are  weary.  We  have  proved,  1st.  That  there  was  no  Bap- 
tist church  in  England  until  the  year  1633.  Therefore,  no 
matter  how  the  version  of  1611  rendered  the  word  haptidzo, 
the  translators  could  not  possibly  have  any  reference  to  Bap- 
tist views  on  the  subject,  inasmuch  as  they  could  not  wish 
to  oppose  the  opinion  of  a  Church  tvhich  had  no  existence. 
2d.  We  have  proved,  by  examining  six  different  transla- 
tions, reaching  back  to  1340,  that  the  word  never  had  been 
translated  immerse  prior  to  the  time  of  King  James. 
Therefore,  from  first  to  last,  during  a  period  of  more  than 
Jive  hundred  years,  the  word  hcqjtize  has  alone  been  consid- 
ered the  equivalent  of  haptidzo.  3d.  We  have  proved  by 
Baptist  testimony  that  baptize  is  the  only  word  in  the  Eng- 
lish language  that  will  express  the  meaning  of  iaptidzo; 


68  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

that  it  is  six  or  eight  hundred  years  older  than  immerse; 
and  that,  in  English,  it  is  a  generic  word,  meaning  to 
sprinkle,  pour,  and  christen.  4th.  We  have  proved,  by  the 
same  testimony,  that  the  Baptists  have  attempted  to  make  a 
new  version  of  the  Bible  in  the  nineteenth  century  for  the 
purpose  of  putting  immersion  in  it;  that  they  have  signally 
failed,  having  lost  the  confidence  of  their  own  friends,  and 
finally  yielded  the  whole  matter  to  individual  action.  There- 
fore, having  acknowledged  that  the  Bible  does  not  prove  or 
require  immersion  as  it  is,  and  failing  to  make  it  what  they 
want  it,  they  have,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  abandoned 
their  ground,  and  given  up  the  question  at  issue.  Thus  the 
builders  of  the  modern  Babel,  in  attempting  to  wrest  the 
word  of  God  from  the  hands  of  their  fellow  -  Christians, 
have  destroyed  themselves  instead  of  injuring  the  Pedobap- 
tist  world. 

"  Here  I  might  be  content  to  leave  the  subject.  But,  inas- 
much as  we  have  set  out  with  the  purpose  of  examining  the 
whole  ground,  we  shall  proceed  to  other  branches  of  the  in- 
quiry, and  see  that  in  the  field  of  classical  criticism  they  have 
committed  logical  suicide.  We  shall  continue  our  meetings  for 
several  evenings  more ;  and  I  wish  it  to  be  distinctly  under- 
stood, that  all  persons  are  desired  to  propound  any  question, 
or  state  any  difficulty  which  may  arise  in  their  minds.  We 
are  seeking  the  truth,  to  know  what  the  will  of  God  is  con- 
cerning us,  and  in  such  important  matters  candor  and  frank- 
ness should  always  characterize  our  movements.'' 

The  audience  was  then  dismissed.  Many  of  them  had 
heard  that  which  brought  confusion  and  dismay  into  their 
hearts.  Honestly  persuaded  of  the  rectitude  of  their  prin- 
ciples, they  found  that  they  had  heard  but  one  side  of  a 
question,  which  had  determined  their  Christian  character 
and  position.  Among  the  audience  there  were  doubtless 
those  who  had  determined  to  reject  any  amount  and  any 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  69 

kind  of  evidence,  however  distinct  and  truthful  it  might  be, 
if  that  evidence  made  against  their  established  prejudices. 
For  these  persons  argument  is  useless,  logic  is  vain.  But 
there  were  others,  who,  while  mortified  at  the  conduct  of 
their  pastor,  Mr.  Ellis,  and  humbled  in  their  denominational 
pride,  were  still  willing  to  hear  the  investigation  through, 
even  if  they  should  be  called  upon  to  abandon  some  of  their 
present  opinions. 


70  THEOTHILUS    WALTONJ     OR, 


CHAPTER    VIII. 

JOB    AND     HIS     COMFORTERS. 

Early  on  Friday  morning,  after  tlie  conversation  which 
we  have  just  detailed,  qnite  a  number  of  persons  assembled 
at  the  study  of  the  Baptist  pastor.  An  air  of  anxiety  and 
perplexity  was  perceptible  on  every  countenance.  Mr.  Ellis 
seemed  to  be  in  deep  distress,  and  every  effort  to  rally  him- 
self, in  order  to  throw  off  the  effects  of  the  last  night's  dis- 
comfiture, only  resulted  in  deeper  dejection. 

^^I  will  tell  you,  brethren,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  ^^  it  is  vain  to 
reason  with  that  Methodist  circuit-rider;  he  must  know 
that  he  is  perverting  the  truth,  and  persecuting  our  people. 
I  am  heartily  sorry  that  I  put  my  foot  inside  of  that  mise- 
rable meeting-house." 

'' Didn't  I  tell  you  how  it  would  be?"  exclaimed  Deacon 
Smith — a  small  man,  with  a  low  forehead,  heavy  eyebrows, 
and,  withal,  a  very  unprepossessing  countenance.  "  That's 
what  you  get  for  abandoning  the  Old  Landmark  doctrine. 
If  you  acknowledge  these  rantizers  to  be  Christian  ministers, 
you  may  expect  to  get  paid  in  just  such  a  way  as  this. 
You  might  as  well  give  up  4E)ur  cause  at  once  if  you  preach 
with  them,  or  suffer  them  to  enter  your  pulpit." 

^a  did  all  for  the  best.  Brother  Smith,"  replied  Mr.  Ellis; 
"  I  could  not  well  refuse  to  preach  among  them,  without 
injuring  our  cause,  but  I  never  dreamed  that  things  would 
come  to  this  pass.     I  had  not  the  least  idea  that  they  would 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  71 

take  any  of  our  people  from  us.  Alas !  have  I  been  laboring  in 
vain  to  indoctrinate  my  people  for  the  last  ten  years  ?  Five 
lost  at  one  sweep,  and  none  gained  from  them  in  return." 

'^It  is  too  bad/'  said  Deacon  Smith;  ^^but  I  knew  it — I 
told  you  how  it  would  be.  It's  turned  out  exactly  as  I 
said/'  and  the  deacon  shrugged  his  shoulders,  and  looked  as 
if  it  did  him  good  to  know  that  he  could  prophesy,  even  if 
the  fulfilment  resulted  in  his  own  injury.  "  I  am  in  favor 
of  holding  a  meeting,  Brother  Ellis,  and  instructing  our 
pastor  not  to  recognize  Pedobaptist  preachers  as  ministers  of 
Christ ;  we  ought  to  shut  them  out  of  every  gospel  Church 
in  the  land.  The  time  has  come,  sir,  for  us  to  take  high 
ground  on  that  subject.  I  say  hir/Ji  ground,  sir — I  mean 
gospel  ground,  Scripture  ground  on  the  subject.  We  ought 
to  let  the  world  know  that  we  are  not  the  poor,  despised 
people  they  represent  us  to  be;  we  ought  to  make  theni  feel 
that  we  are  the  Churches  of  Christ,  and  that  they  have  no 
right  to  expect  any  fellowship  with  us,  whilst  they  hold  to 
such  monstrous  errors  as  rantizing  infants,  and  sprinkling 
water  for  baptism. '^ 

Mr.  Ellis  did  not  seem  to  hear  the  deacon's  ^suggestion. 
He  sat  in  his  easy-chair,  with  his  hand  supporting  his  head, 
and  seemed  almost  lost  in  deep  but  painful  thought.  For 
some  moments  there  was  an  unbroken  silence  in  the  room. 
Deacon  Smith  took  down  a  well-worn  copy  of  the  ^'Iron 
AVheel,"  his  favorite  text-book,  and  appeared  to  be  searching 
.for  a  passage  in  proof  of  the  propriety  of  the  course  he 
proposed. 

^'I'U  tell  you,  brethren,"  said  he,  "here's  the  document. 
This  is  the  book  for  the  times.  If  we  would  only  follow 
Brother  Graves,  we  would  soon  see  the  vineyard  of  the 
'Lord  flourishing." 

"  I  think  we  have  followed  '  Brother  G-raves'  already  to 
the  very  brink  of  ruin!"  exclaimed  Mr.  Barbour,  a  young 


72  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

man,  whose  intelligent  eye  kindled  to  unwonted  indignation 
at  the  deacon's  proposition.  ^'I  think  we  have  followed 
^Brother  Graves'  in  his  attempts  to  overthrow  Pedobaptist 
Churches,  until  our  ejQforts  are  likely  to  recoil  upon  us  in 
destructive  force." 

"  Well,  Brother  Barbour,  I  could  hardly  expect  any  thing 
more  of  you,"  said  the  deacon ;  "  I  always  knew  that  you 
were  a  so/i-shell.'^ 

^^And  I  knew  7/our  shell  was  very  hard,  Deacon,"  replied 
Mr.  Barbour,  '^but  I  did  not  expect  you  to  counsel  us  to  do 
ourselves  more  harm,  when  everybody  sees  that  we  have 
brought  our  troubles  on  ourselves." 

^^How  is  that?"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  starting  up  from  his 
revery.     "  I  didn't  understand  that  remark  of  yours." 

"  I  said.  Brother  Ellis,"  continued  Mr.  Barbour,  '^  that 
we  had  brought  our  present  troubles  upon  ourselves." 

"  How  so,  brother  ?" 

"  Why,  sir,  by  disturbing  the  peace  of  the  community  on 
the  subject  of  baptism,  when  there  was  no  occasion  for  it. 
We  have  wantonly  provoked  the  Pedobaptists  into  retalia- 
tion, and  I  firmly  believe  we  are  accountable  for  whatever 
injury  we  may  sufi"er." 

"  That  is,  you  mean  /  am  accountable  for  these  difficul- 
ties ?" 

^'  Not  altogether.  Brother  Ellis.  I  blame  you  for  preach- 
ing that  sermon;  but  I  blame  others  for  advising  and 
encouraging  you  to  do  it.  There  was  no  necessity  for  it ; 
no  good  could  have  been  done  by  it;  and  we  see  much 
harm  has  been  done  by  such  an  imprudent  course." 

^'  Ought  we  not  to  preach  the  doctrines  we  believe.  Bro- 
ther Barbour  ?" 

^^  Yes,  when  occasion  requires;  but  in  this  case  you  must 
have  known  that  it  was  impossible  to  accomplish  any 
thing.'' 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  73 

^^Well,  mine  is  a  hard  case/'  said  Mr.  Ellis;  "to  be 
rebuked  by  my  own  members  for  doing  what  I  supposed  to 
be  my  duty,  is  too  liard.'^ 

"  Not  worse  than  to  have  the  feelings  of  your  members 
mortified  by  such  blunders  as  you  made  last  night,  Brother 
Ellis/' 

"And  what  hlunder  did  I  make  last  night,  Brother  Bar- 
bour r 

"Why,  you  interrupted  Mr.  Mason,  in  order  to  prove 
that  he  was  misrepresenting  Baptist  writers ;  and  then  when 
he  told  you  he  had  the  original  documents,  jovl  refused  to 
compare  them.'' 

"  0,  never  mind  !  I  will  show  up  his  dishonesty  at  the 
proper  time." 

"  But  of  all  times  in  the  world,  Brother  Ellis,  that  was 
the  one.  If  you  could  have  exposed  him  there,  our  triumph 
would  have  been  complete.  But  you  let  the  occasion  slip, 
and  now  I  believe  no  one  thinks  you  can  set  the  matter 
right." 

"No,  indeed,"  said  Mr.  Newton,  an  elderly  gentleman, 
who  had  been  quietly  listening  to  the  conversation.  "  You 
will  never  set  that  matter  right;  for  the  very  good  reason 
that  he  read  the  quotations  correctly.  Drs.  Ide,  Williams, 
and  others  have  said  precisely  what  he  read.  There  is  no 
use  to  deny  that." 

"That  alters  the  case,"  said  Mr.  Barbour;  "but  it  makes 
Brother  Ellis's  blunder  more  fatal.  If  Mr.  Mason  was  doing 
us  no  injustice.  Brother  Ellis's  attempt  to  make  the  people 
believe  that  he  ivas  doing  so,  adds  unfairness  to  error.  But 
that  is  not  all.  Why  did  you  refuse  to  answer  his  question, 
Brother  Ellis  ?" 

"  What — about  the  quotations  I  read  in  my  sermon  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir." 

"  Why,  the  fact  is,  because  I  did  read  my  extracts  out  of 
4 


74  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

a  Baptist  book;  but  I  honestly  tbougbt  they  were  cor- 
rect/' 

^^  Why  didn't  you  $ay  so,  then  ?  A  frank  acknowledg- 
ment would  have  done  you  no  harm." 

"  But  then  I  would  have  acknowledged  that  I  had  done 
the  very  thing  I  was  trying  to  prove  against  him." 

"  Suppose  you  had.  Even  that  would  be  better  than  the 
present  situation  of  the  matter.  As  it  is  now,  the  people 
think  you  have  done  something  very  bad,  they  scarcely  know 
what.  You  may  rest  assured  that  all  but  your  personal 
friends  will  put  the  worst  construction  upon  it,  and  charge 
you  with  wilful  dishonesty." 

"  I  am  very  sorry,"  said  Mr.  Ellis.  ''  0,  how  I  wish  I 
had  not  preached  that  sermon  !" 

"And  well  you  may  be,"  remarked  Mr.  Newton;  '^for  if 
it  has  not  got  us  into  a  hornet's  nest,  I  am  no  judge." 

"  Well,  have  you  done  tormenting  me,  gentlemen  ?  Have 
I  made  any  more  blunders  ?"  inquired  Mr.  Ellis,  with  an 
air  of  assumed  indifference.  "  Really,  I  have  a  set  of  Job's 
comforters  to-day." 

"  I  wish  that  you  may  make  as  good  an  end  of  it  as  Job 
did,"  said  Mr.  Newton. 

"  I  have  a  little  matter  I  wish  to  have  explained.  Brother 
Ellis,"  said  Mr.  Lewis,  a  young  man  who  had  been  a  mem- 
ber of  the  Church  but  a  few  months,  and  had  been  proselyted 
from  the  Presbyterians.  "You  know.  Brother  Ellis,"  he 
continued,  "that  the  agent  of  the  Bible  Union  was  along 
here  a  few  weeks  ago  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir,  I  know  that— Elder  D.,  of  New  York.    Well—" 

"He  preached  on  the  subject  of  revising  the  Bible,  and 
took  up  a  collection  to  aid  the  Union." 

"  So  he  did.     Proceed." 

"And  I  gave  him  ten  dollars." 

"Very  well.     What  of  it?" 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  75 

"  Wliy,  there  is  this  about  it.  I  work  hard  for  my 
money,  Brother  Ellis,  and  I  don't  like  to  be  swindled  out  of 
it.'^ 

"Who  talks  about  swindling  you  out  of  your  money, 
Brother  Lewis  V 

"  Why,  sir,  if  this  article  in  the  paper  is  true,  that  agent 
swindled  me  out  of  my  money.  Mr.  Mason  said  last  night 
that  the  Union  was  ^  blown  up,'  and  that  Dr.  Maclay  had 
abandoned  it.  After  the  meeting  adjourned,  I  went  to  him, 
and  asked  him  where  he  got  that  information.  He  showed 
me  a  pamphlet  from  Dr.  Maclay,  and  lent  me  this  paper 
containing  several  extracts  from  the  pamphlet.^' 

"  That's  the  very  thing  I  showed  you  in  the  Enquirer, 
Brother  Ellis,"  said  Deacon  Smith;  "you  recollect  it,  don't 
you?" 

"  You  showed  Dr.  Maclay 's  publication  to  Brother  Ellis, 
Brother  Smith,  when?" 

"  Well,  it  has  been  some  time  ago — directly  after  it  came 
out." 

"And  was  it  before  the  agent  was  here  V^ 

"0,  yes;  two  or  three  weeks  before." 

"And  you  knew  all  these  facts  stated  by  Dr.  Maclay, 
Brother  Ellis,  without  letting  the  people  understand  what 
they  were  doing  when  they  paid  their  money  to  the  so- 
ciety ?" 

"  I  don't  see  that  Dr.  Maclay  has  said  any  thing  very  bad 
about  the  Bible  Union.  He  simply  differed  with  them 
about  some  of  their  arrangements." 

"Well,  Brother  Ellis,  let  us  see  whether  it  was  only  a 
mere  matter  of  difference  or  not.  After  stating  that  he 
began  to  make  investigations  into  the  state  of  the  Union, 
Dr.  Maclay  says  :  ^  I  then  for  the  first  time  ascertained  who 
the  revisers  were;  and  found,  to  my  astonishment,  that 
instead  of  there  having  been  about  forty  individuals  actually 


76  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

engaged  in  translating  tlie  New  Testament,  as  I  had  under- 
stood from  the  Secretary,  and  often  stated,  there  had  not 
been  more  than  twenty-three  or  twenty-four.  Instead  of  all 
these  being  competent  scholars,  as  I  had  supposed,  and  as 
the  plan  of  the  Union  required,  and  as  is  often  reiterated  in 
the  official  documents  of  the  Union,  some  of  them  unques- 
tionably lacked  the  essential  qualifications  of  a  translator/ 

^'Now,  Brother  Ellis,  you  know  that  Elder  D.,  the  agent, 
said  there  were  over  forty  of  the  first  scholars  of  the  age, 
selected  from  all  denominations,  engaged  in  the  work.  But 
Dr.  Maclay  goes  farther,  and  accuses  the  society  of  squan- 
dering the  money  of  their  patrons.     He  says  : 

^^  ^  But  I  found  myself  unable  to  remedy  the  existing  grow- 
ing evils.  My  best  endeavors,  in  the  whole  affair,  instead  of 
being  met  with  candor  and  frankness,  have  been  captiously 
and  obstinately  thwarted. 

^'  '  Being  thus  compelled  to  relinquish  all  hope  of  reform, 
I  was  constrained  some  time  ago  to  withdraw  from  the  meet- 
ings of  the  Board.  It  only  remains  for  me,  therefore,  to 
take  care  that  I  be  not  a  party  to  wrongs  which  I  have  in 
vain  sought  to  remedy. 

^^  ^  Being  fully  satisfied,  from  personal  examination,  that 
the  funds  which  I  have  done  so  much  to  collect,  and  which 
I  know  have  been  most  sacredly  devoted,  by  the  rich  and 
poor,  to  one  of  the  holiest  purposes  of  Christian  charity,  are 
being  squandered ;  that  a  vast  amount  is  expended  for 
operations  remote  from  the  one  great  object  of  the  institu- 
tion ;  that  men  are  employed  to  translate  the  word  of  God 
who  are  not  qualified  for  the  work;  that  unwarrantable 
translations  have  been  made,  which,  if  published,  must 
bring  into  discredit  the  most  precious  doctrines  of  my  faith, 
sap  the  fundamental  truths  of  Christianity,  as  indubitably 
revealed  in  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  shake  the  confidence 
of  the  people  in  the  canon  of  the  sacred  writings 


THE    MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  77 

'<  'And  having  now,  after  half  a  century  spent  in  the 
ministry  of  the  gospel,  devoted  all  my  strength  and  influence, 
for  the  last  six  years,  to  inspire  the  public  mind  with  confi- 
dence in  what  seemed  to  me  the  greatest  enterprise  of  the 
age — having  induced  thousands  throughout  the  United 
States,  in  the  British  Provinces  and  Europe,  to  become  self- 
sacrificing  supporters  of  the  American  Bible  Union — and 
being  myself  at  last  compelled,  by  the  hopeless  mismanage- 
ment of  that  institution,  which  is  barely  outlined  in  this 
letter,  to  abandon  the  enterprise,  I  feel  bound,  as  an  honest 
man  and  a  Christian,  to  answer  the  inquiries  which  are 
coming  to  me  from  every  quarter,  by  frankly  stating,  once 
for  all,  the  reasons  of  my  action/  ^' 

"  Now,  Brother  Ellis,  what  do  you  think  of  that  ?'' 

^'  Well,  I  think  Dr.  Maclay  is  mistaken,  that's  all.'' 

"  But  I  difi"er  with  you,  Mr.  Ellis ;  for  if  you  can  possess 
such  information  as  that,  and  permit  the  money  of  your 
people  to  be  taken  from  them  under  false  pretences,  all  I 
have  to  say  is " 

"Is  what?"  asked  Mr.  Ellis. 

"  Well,  sir,  all  that  I  luill  say  is,  that  you  will  not  get  me 
into  a  like  difficulty  again ;  for  if  this  is  the  way  you  Bap- 
tists manage  your  afi"airs,  I  give  you  notice  that  I  mean  to 
withdraw  from  you.'' 

"Well,  if  it  comes  to  that,  Mr.  Lewis,"  said  the  pastor, 
"  I  must  inform  you  that  we  don't  allow  our  members  to 
withdraw." 

"  Then,  sir,  I  will  withdraw  whether  you  allow  it  or  not." 

"  Come,  brethren,"  said  Mr.  Newton,  "  don't  indulge  in 
hasty  speeches.  Think  calmly  about  the  matter.  Brother 
Lewis ;  perhaps  you  will  not  blame  Brother  Ellis." 

"  I  am  not  excited,  Brother  Newton,  but  I  have  resolved 
to  leave  the  Church,"  said  Mr.  Lewis,  "  and  return  to  my 
old  home,  where  I  shall  receive  better  treatment." 


T8  THEOPniLUS    WALTON;     OR, 

^'  If  you  do,  we  will  expel  you/'  said  Mr.  Ellis. 

^^  Very  well,  Mr.  Ellis,  expel  as  much  as  you  please ;  my 
mind  is  made  up,  sir.     Good  morning.'' 

^'  There  now !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Barbour,  ^^  we  have  lost  a 
member,  and  one  of  the  best  we  had  !" 

"We  may  set  that  down  to  the  account  of  the  Bible 
Union  !"  said  Mr.  Newton. 

"  I  wonder  that  you  didn't  say  to  my  account,"  said  Mr. 
Ellis. 

"  He  would  have  been  more  than  half  right  if  he  had," 
replied  Mr.  Barbour. 

'^Well,  it  don't  matter  much,"  said  the  pastor,  taking 
his  hat,  and  approaching  the  door.  "Lewis  never  was 
much  of  a  Baptist  any  way  !" 

"  He  was  good  enough  as  long  as  he  stayed  with  us," 
whispered  Mr.  Barbour  to  Mr.  Newton.  "  But  now  that  he 
is  gone,  he  is  good  for  nothing !  So  we  go.  Grood  day, 
Brother  Newton." 

Mr.  Ellis  disappeared  around  the  next  corner,  and  the 
company  separated. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  79 


CHAPTEE    IX. 

CARRIE    mason's   REVIEW   OF    "  THEODOSIA   ERNEST." 

On  Friday  afternoon  Theopliilus  called  on  Mary  Ellis,  and 
asked  if  slie  would  like  to  attend  a  little  meeting  to  be  held 
at  the  house  of  a  neighbor. 

"  I  am  authorized  to  invite  any  young  gentleman  or  lady 
who  may  be  disposed  to  go/'  said  Theophilus,  ^^and  I 
thought  perhaps  you  would  like  to  be  there.  You  are 
acquainted  with  Carrie  Mason,  I  believe,  are  you  not,  Miss 
Mary?" 

"  Very  well,  Theophilus ;  she  is  an  old  friend  of  mine ; 
that  is,  she  has  been  quite  intimate  with  me  since  her 
father  was  first  stationed  here.  You  know  he  has  been 
appointed  to  this  place  twice.  I  have  a  high  opinion  of 
Carrie  ;  she  is  quite  a  pretty  girl,  and  very  intelligent.  But 
what  has  she  to  do  with  the  meeting,  Theophilus  ?" 

^'  Why,  you  know  the  young  people  partake  of  the  feeling 
extant  among  the  older  persons  in  the  community,  and  we 
are  to  have  a  sort  of  religious  discussion  this  afternoon." 

^^  Indeed  !     And  who  are  the  parties  ?" 

''Why,  Carrie  Mason  and  ' Theodosia  Ernest!'  Carrie 
has  offered  to  review  Theodosia,  and  we  are  going  to  have  as 
many  of  the  young  converts  there  as  wish  to  attend." 

"  Then  you  are  going  to  set  Carrie  to  proselyting,  are 
you  ?     I  don't  think  I  can  attend." 

''  No,  Mary,  there  will  be  no  '  proselyting'  done ;  our  object 


80  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

is  to  inquire  after  the  trutli,  and  we  want  all  tlie  help  we 
can  get.  Besides,  the  Misses  Parker  will  be  there,  and  other 
Baptist  ladies,  to  see  that  every  thing  is  fairly  transacted.'' 

"Well,  well,  I  think  the  Methodists  and  Presbyterians 
are  engaging  in  a  fine  business  now.  When  young  girls  turn 
to  be  controversialists,  I  think  it  is  time  for  the  preachers 
to  stop.'' 

"  You  forget,  Mary,  how  readily  you  proposed  to  convince 
me  that  immersion  was  right,  the  other  day.  You  have  set 
the  girls  an  example  in  the  practice  of  disputation." 

"  0,  but  I  was  only  in  sport.  The. ;  besides,  there  was  no 
one  present  but  youP 

"Well,  Mary,  I  think  it  very  proper  when  a  young 
lady's  experience  is  published  to  the  world,  and  her  argu- 
ments made  the  vehicle  of  proselyting  efforts,  that  those 
arguments  should  be  answered  by  another  lady — that  is,  if 
Carrie  can  do  so.  But  come,  can't  you  go?  There  is  no 
impropriety  in  it.     Nobody  will  be  there  but  young  persons." 

"I  believe  I  will  go.  The.,  if  only  to  oblige  you.  But  I 
tell  you  now,  I  think  Carrie  will  have  the  hardest  task  she 
ever  attempted." 

"  Well,  let  us  go  and  see." 

As  they  were  on  their  way  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Eiley, 
where  the  party  was  to  assemble,  Mary  endeavored  to  per- 
suade Theophilus  to  have  no  more  to  do  with  these  meetings 
at  the  church.  She  thought  that  he  could  satisfy  himself 
about  the  subject  of  baptism  without  making  so  much  dis- 
play. He  replied  that  the  meetings  were  not  intended  for 
his  benefit  alone,  and  that  inasmuch  as  he  had  commenced 
the  investigation  with  Mr.  Mason,  it  would  not  be  proper, 
even  if  he  desired  to  do  so,  to  abandon  it.  "  Besides,"  he 
added,  "  truth  can  never  suffer  by  being  canvassed,  particu- 
larly where  any  unfairness  could  be  at  once  detected  and 
exposed." 


THE     MAJESTY     OE    TRUTH.  81 

Arrived  at  tlie  house,  tliej  found  about  a  dozen  persons 
assembled,  who  seemed  to  represent  the  three  Churches 
very  fairly.  The  most  pleasing  feature  connected  with  the 
meeting  was,  that  all  present,  with  the  exception  of  Miss 
Mason,  had  been  brought  up  in  the  same  community,  and  were 
on  the  most  agreeable  terms.  The  utmost  friendship  exist- 
ing between  them,  was  a  pledge  of  harmony  and  good  feel- 
ing, so  that  they  were  not  likely  to  abuse  an  opportunity  for 
seeking  truth,  by  making  it  an  occasion  of  contention  and 
strife. 

"  I  understand  that  you  have  promised  to  review  Theo- 
dosia  for  us,  Miss  Mason,^'  said  Theophilus,  ''and  we  hope 
that  you  are  prepared  to  fulfil  your  promise.'^ 

"  I  did  promise  to  look  over  the  book  with  a  friend  or 
two,  Mr.  Walton,''  replied  Carrie,  ''  but  I  did  not  expect  to 
have  so  large  an  audience.  I  am  hardly  qualified  to  enter- 
tain you,  I  am  afraid.  But  if  you  insist,  I  will  give  some 
of  my  objections  to  the  book,  upon  two  or  three  conditions.'' 

''  We  shall  be  ready  to  grant  any  conditions  you  require," 
replied  Theophilus. 

''Well,  in  the  first  place,"  said  Carrie,  "I  wish  all 
present  to  assure  me  that  they  will  take  no  offence  at  any 
thing  I  may  say ;  with  this  explanation,  that  I  do  not  intend 
to  say  any  thing  with  a  design  to  wound  the  feelings  of  any 
one.     Will  you  agree  to  this '/" 

"  Of  course  we  will,"  was  the  reply. 

"  In  the  next  place,  then,"  continued  Carrie,  "  if  I  should 
be  tempted  to  use  a  harsh  expression,  I  wish  you  to  stop  me 
right  there,  and  I  will  take  it  back." 

"  I  will  answer  for  all,"  said  Theophilus ;  "  we  will  agree 
to  that,  too." 

"In  the  last  place,  then,"  continued  Carrie,  "I  wish 
every  one  to  understand  that  the  objections  I  am  going  to 
4* 


82  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

oiFer  are  to  this  book,  Thcodosia  Ernest,  and  not  to  the 
Baptist  Church,  here  or  elsewhere." 

"  We  understand  that,  Miss  Mason,"  replied  Theophilus, 
'^  and  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  we  shall  all  part  as  good 
friends  as  when  we  met  together." 

"  Very  well,"  said  Carrie.  "  The  first  objection  which  I 
have  to  urge  against  Theodosia  is,  that  it  is  not  a  candid 
book.  The  author's  apparent  design  is  to  set  forth  the 
strong  arguments  of  his  Church,  and  show  their  superiority 
over  those  of  the  Pedobaptist  Churches.  To  do  this  as  it 
ought  to  be  done,  he  should  have  placed  the  strongest  argu- 
ments of  the  Pedobaptists  in  the  mouths  of  their  advocates. 
Instead  of  this,  however,  he  makes  a  grave  Presbyterian 
minister  utter  language  which,  to  say  the  least  of  it,  is  alto- 
gether out  of  character.  The  minister's  ignorance  of  the 
subject  which  he  attempts  to  argue,  if  it  is  not  intended  as  a 
reproach  to  the  denomination,  is  nevertheless  a  blemish  in 
the  book. 

"Another  objection  to  the  book  is  the  singular  character 
given  to  Theodosia.  She  appears  to  have  grown  up  to  be 
quite  a  woman  before  she  ever  saw  anybody  immersed. 
And,  as  a  matter  of  course,  she  had  the  benefit  of  Presbyte- 
rian instruction  on  the  subject  of  baptism,  as  well  as  other 
points  of  doctrine.  Yet,  the  very  first  time  that  she  sees  a 
person  immersed,  she  expresses  herself  precisely  in  the  lan- 
guage of  a  full-grown  Baptist.  Though  she  had  been  taught 
that  pouring,  sprinkling,  and  immersion  were  all  modes  of 
baptism,  no  sooner  does  she  see  immersion  performed  than 
she  comes  to  the  conclusion  that,  if  immersion  is  baptism, 
pouritig  or  sprinkling  is  not." 

''I  noticed  that  when  I  first  read  the  book,"  remarked 
Alice  Brown;  "and  I  thought  it  was  rather  strange  lan- 
guage for  a  Presbyterian." 

"  Indeed  it  is,  Alice,"  replied  Carrie ;  "  for  if  I  under- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  83 

stand  any  thing  about  tlie  subject,  tlie  author  assumes  that 
to  be  true  which  is  the  main  point  of  the  controversy,  that 
is,  that  there  is  but  one  mode  of  Christian  baptism.  To 
make  Theodosia  entertain  this  opinion  is,  in  a  word,  to  deny 
that  she  ever  was  a  Presbyterian.  And  yet,  if  there  was  no 
conversion  from  the  Presbyterian  to  the  Baptist  Church,  the 
book  is  altogether  without  point.  To  make  this  a  little 
plainer,  let  us  suppose  that  Theodosia,  whilst  a  member  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  believed  that  there  could  be  but 
one  mode  of  baptism :  that  mode,  as  generally  practiced 
among  Presbyterians,  must  be  sprinkling.  Now,  if  she 
thought  sprinkling  was  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  of  course 
she  unchurched  all  the  Baptists.  But  this  we  know  the 
Presbyterians  do  not,  but  grant  that  they  are  baptized 
validly. 

*^"We  find  Theodosia,  then,  a  Baptist  to  all  intents  and 
purposes  at  the  very  commencement  of  the  book,  and  her 
subsequent  history  is  only  an  effort  to  build  her  up  in  her 
Baptist  faith.  If  the  author  had  said  this,  no  matter  how 
much  we  might  regret  her  meeting  with  such  poor  advocates 
of  Pedobaptism,  we  could  expect  nothing  more  of  Theo- 
dosia than  to  see  her  a  confirmed  Baptist  at  the  end  of  the 
volume. 

"  But  this  author,  I  contend,  shows  a  want  of  candor,  in 
making  Theodosia  surrender  the  main  question  in  dispute 
without  argument,  without  help,  without  reasoning  of  any 
kind,  as  if  the  mere  seeing  a  person  immersed  was  enough 
to  settle  the  controversy,  and  decide  a  contest  of  ages,  by 
the  light  of  nature/' 

"  But  let  me  ask  you,  Carrie,''  said  Alice  Parker,  "  if  it  is 
not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  seeing  two  things  performed 
so  entirely  distinct  as  sprinkling  and  immersion,  would  not 
be  sufl&cient  to  convince  the  common  sense  of  Theodosia 
that  they  could  not  both  be  true  baptism  ?" 


84  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

"  No  doubt  it  would  be  enough  to  convince  tbe  common 
sense  of  a  Baptist,  Alice/'  replied  Carrie ;  '^  but  tliere 
would  not  be  tlie  slightest  necessity  for  such  an  impression 
upon  a  Presbyterian  or  Pedobaptist  mind.  That  thing  which 
you  call  common  sense  is  very  difficult  to  define.  Your  com- 
mon sense  teaches  you  that  exclusive  immersion  is  right; 
and  therefore  nothing  else  is  baptism.  At  the  same  time, 
however,  my  common  sense  teaches  me  that  exclusive  immer- 
sion is  wrong,  and  that  the  belief  of  it  is  productive  of 
much  harm  to  the  cause  of  God.  So  you  see  common 
sense,  that  vague,  indefinite  thing,  will  not  settle  the  ques- 
tion. 

^'  But  there  are  other  points  of  importance  in  the  work  to 
which  I  would  call  your  attention,  in  illustration  of  the 
fact  that  it  is  not  a  candid  book.  If  the  author  had 
intended  to  deal  fairly  with  Presbyterians,  lie  would  have 
selected  at  least  fair  specimens  of  piety  and  intelligence  to 
represent  them.  I  have  said  that  Mr.  Johnson,  the  Presby- 
terian minister,  is  exhibited  as  an  utterly  ignorant  advocate 
of  the  Pedobaptist  cause,  whilst  the  Baptist  schoolmaster 
manages  his  side  with  skill  and  ability.  Now,  my  friends, 
I  think  it  not  impossible  by  any  means  to  find  a  Baptist 
schoolmaster  who  is  a  better  scholar  than  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  but  I  think  such  a  case  would  be  allowed  by  all  to 
be  the  exception,  not  the  ride.  To  make  his  triumph  worthy 
of  the  name,  a  disputant  will  always  select  'a  foeman 
worthy  of  his  steel.' 

''  In  regard  to  the  question  of  piety,  too,  Theodosia's 
mother  is  not  a  fair  specimen  of  Presb3'^terians.  She  is 
represented  as  an  unconverted  woman,  who  was  brought  up  in 
the  Church,  and  had  nothing  further  to  do  in  order  to  make 
her  a  good  Presbyterian  than  to  go  to  the  Lord's  table.  So 
far  as  I  am  able  to  judge.  Baptists  have  no  advantage  over 
Presbyterians  on  the  score  of  piety.     It  is  unfair,  then,  to 


THE     MAJESTY    OF     TRUTH.  85 

select  a  person  as  a  representative  of  a  particular  virtue  who 
is  wliolly  or  partially  destitute  of  that  virtue. 

"  The  same  remark  will  apply  to  Mr.  Percy,  the  friend 
and  lover  of  Theodosia.  He,  too,  is  an  unconverted  man, 
although  regarded  as  a  ^most  excellent  member'  of  the 
^  Presbyterian  Society'  by  his  brethren  :  as  if  we  are  to 
acknowledge  that  piety  is  less  necessary  to  constitute  a  good 
Presbyterian  than  a  good  Baptist.  Now  I  object  to  this  way 
of  treating  our  neighbors,  and  I  must  be  permitted  to  say 
that  it  comes  very  near  violating,  if  it  does  not  absolutely 
violate,  the  Ninth  Commandment — '  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false 
witness  against  thy  neighbor.' 

^^  Edwin  Ernest,  the  brother  of  Theodosia,  is  another 
character  that  speaks  either  unlike  one  of  his  years,  or  else 
one  who  had  been  subjected  to  a  different  course  of  training. 
After  asking  his  mother  whether  he  had  ever  been  bap- 
tized, Edwin  speaks  as  follows  :  ^  One  minister  takes  a  per- 
son down  into  the  water,  and  dips  her  under  it;  another 
stands  on  the  dry  floor  of  the  church,  before  the  pulpit,  and 
sprinkles  a  few  drops  into  her  face ;  another  pours  a  little 
stream  upon  her  head.  Now,  anybody  can  see  that  they  do 
three  different  things  ;  and  if  each  of  them  is  baptism,  then 
there  must  be  three  baptisms.' 

'^  Now  this  sort  of  reasoning  bears  the  Baptist  stamp,  and 
I  want  to  show  you  here  how  fallacious  it  is.  If  Edwin  had 
observed  matters  in  the  schoolhouse,  he  would  have  seen 
very  frequently  illustrated  that  there  are  many  modes  of 
doing  the  same  thing.  For  instance,  one  of  the  scholars 
reads  his  lesson  to  his  teacher — in  that  case  he  uses  his  eyes, 
his  mouth,  and  his  brain  or  mind  :  this  is  evidently  reading. 
But  at  the  same  time  another  boy,  in  a  different  part  of  the 
room,  reads  his  lesson ;  but  reads  it,  as  we  say,  to  himself, 
that  is,  he  only  uses  his  brain  and  his  eyes.  No  one  will 
deny  that  this  is  as    proper  a  method   of   reading  as  the 


86  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

Other.  But  tliere  is  still  anotlier  way,  for  the  blind  boy  in 
Mr.  Barbour's  school  has  learned  to  read  with  his  fingers, 
without  the  use  of  his  eyes.  Now,  we  see  one  uses  the 
mind,  eyes,  and  mouth  in  one  method  of  reading ;  the  mind 
and  the  eyes  only  in  another;  and  the  mind  and  the  fingers 
in  the  third.  Yet  certainly  these  are  all  different  processes, 
or,  as  Edwin  says,  different  things,  yet  all  three  were  doing 
suhstantially  the  same  thing. ^^ 

u  Yerj  good.  Miss  Carrie  !"  exclaimed  Theophilus.  ^^  I 
think  we'll  have  to  engage  you  to  help  your  father  out  of  the 
hard  places  ;  for  certainly  this  illustration  of  yours  upsets  the 
position  that  there  can  be  but  one  way  to  do  any  given  thing." 

"I  shan't  have  anything  to  do  with  your  matters  and 
father's.  I  am  going  to  leave  all  the  Latin,  Greek,  and  He- 
brew for  you  and  him  :  I  only  want  to  take  a  plain  and  sim- 
ple view  of  this  controversy.'' 

"  But  stop,  Carrie,"  said  Miss  Parker.  "  I  am  not  quite 
satisfied  yet.  When  we  are  speaking  of  these  several  sorts 
of  reading,  we  call  them  reading  aloud,  reading  to  oneself, 
reading  with  the  fingers,  do  we  not  ?" 

^^  Certainly  we  do,"  replied  Carrie,  ^^just  as  we  say  such 
a  one  was  hajytized  by  immersion,  another  was  haiytized  by 
sprinkling,  and  a  third  baptized  by  pouring.  All  these 
actions  are  called  baptism,  just  as  all  the  others  are  called 
readtnr/." 

'''But  stop,  Carrie,"  replied  Alice;  '^is  there  as  much 
difference  between  these  modes  of  reading  as  there  is  in 
your  modes  of  baptism  ?" 

"  Equally  as  much,  Alice,"  answered  Carrie.  "  There  is 
as  much  difference  between  reading  with  the  fingers,  and 
reading  with  the  eyes,  as  there  is  between  covering  a  person 
up  with  water,  and  only  pouring  a  little  water  on  him." 

"  Well,  don't  you  think  that  in  baptism  there  is  some  par- 
ticular act — a  specific  action  performed  ?" 


THE     MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH  8/ 

"  Yes,  I  think  there  is." 

^^Well,  what  would  you  call  that  si^ecific  acty  Carrie?" 
asked  Alice. 

'^  I  should  call  it  the  act  of  bringing  the  body  of  a  scrip- 
tural subject,  and  water,  in  contact." 

<^  Then  you  must  admit  that  the  body  must  be  carried  to 
the  water,  must  you  not  V 

"  Why,  of  course  not,  Alice.  Suppose  I  wish  to  bring 
my  right  hand  in  contact  with  this  book,  I  may  place  the 
hand  on  the  book,  without  moving  the  book,  or  else  I  may 
with  my  left  hand  bring  the  book  to  my  right,  without  moving 
the  right  hand.  So  we  contend  that  the  substance  of  the 
baptismal  act  is  the  application  of  water  to  a  proper  subject, 
no  matter  how  the  water  is  applied  :  whether  it  is  poured  on 
the  person,  or  the  person  is  put  into  it,  we  think  a  matter  of 
no  moment." 

^^  But  it  seems  to  me,  Carrie,"  continued  Alice,  "  that  ac- 
cording to  your  doctrine,  we  could  never  tell  what  particular 
act  was  performed  when  we  hear  that  a  certain  person  was 
baptized.  If  you  were  to  tell  me  that  you  have  been  bap- 
tized, how  could  I  know  whether  you  were  immersed,  or 
had  the  ^diier  poured  on  you,  or  were  only  sprinkled  with  it  ? 
Now,  we  Baptists  know,  when  we  say  a  person  was  baptized, 
precisely  how  the  thing  was  done." 

'^  Let  me  answer  your  question  by  asking  you  one,"  re- 
plied Carrie.  "  If  I  were  to  tell  you  that  Thomas  Smith  read 
a  chapter  in  the  Bible  at  school  to-day,  how  could  you  tell 
what  particular  act  wag  performed  ?  How  could  you  know 
whether  he  read  the  chapter  aloud  to  his  teacher,  or  read  to 
himself;  and  how  could  you  tell  whether  he  read  with  his 
eyes,  or  with  his  fingers  ?" 

^^  Well,  Carrie,"  answered  Alice,  ^^  in  this  particular  case 
I  would  know  that  Thomas  Smith  read  with  his  fingers^  be- 
cause I  know  that  he  is  blind." 


88  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

^^  Exactly  so/'  said  Carrie ;  ^^  then  tlie  condition  or  views 
of  the  person  baptized  being  known  to  us^  we  can  know 
wbat  mode  was  used:  just  as  the  blindness  of  Thomas  Smith 
must  be  known  in  order  for  you  to  ascertain  how  he  reads. 
So,  Alice,  there  is  no  more  difficulty  in  the  one  case  than  in 
the  other,  and  therefore  it  follows  that  pouring,  sprinkling, 
and  immersion,  though  different  modes,  constitute  one  bap- 
tism." 

^^  I  shall  have  to  yield  the  point,  Carrie,''  replied  Alice, 
'^not  because  your  argument  is  conclusive,  but  because  / 
cannot  meet  it.  You  have  the  advantage  of  me  in  being 
better  posted  in  controversy." 

^^I  don't  claim  to  be  a  controversialist,  Alice;  but  I 
think  every  one  is  obliged  to  see  this  matter  in  the  light  I 
have  placed  it  in;  and  if  it  were  not  for  your  education,  Alice, 
your  previous  prejudices,  you  know,  I  think  you  must 
frankly  acknowledge  the  justness  of  my  argument.  How- 
ever that  may  be,  let  us  proceed  in  our  review. 

^^  I  think  the  author  of  Theodosia  has  committed  quite  a 
blunder  in  making  Edwin  offer  to  find  a  word  in  the  Bible 
which  is  not  there." 

"  How  is  that  ?"  asked  Theophilus. 

"  I  will  read  his  words,"  replied  Carrie,  '^  and  then  you 
will  see  the  point.  ^But,  mother,'  says  Edwin,  ^they  all 
agree  that  there  is  only  one  baptism,  do  they  not  ?  And  if 
there  is  only  one,  why  don't  they  just  look  into  the  Testa- 
ment and  see  what  it  is  ?  If  the  Testament  says  sprinkle, 
then  it  is  sprinkling :  if  it  says  pour^then  it  is  pouring  :  if 
it  says  dip,  then  it  is  dipping.  I  mean  to  read  the  Testa- 
ment, and  see  if  I  cannot  decide  which  it  is  for  myself.' 

•'You  see,  then,"  continued  Carrie,  ''that  Edwin  deter- 
mines to  search  the  Testament  to  find  out  whether  the  Tes- 
tament says  sprinkle,  pour,  or  dip.  Now,  if  he  were  going 
to  examine  the  Baptist  Testament,  which  the  'Bible  Union' 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  89 

has  published  or  isgoing  to  publish,  he  would  certainly  find  dip 
there,  or  immerse,  which  they  consider  the  same.  But  if  he 
were  to  search  the  Bible,  our  old  Bible,  the  non-sectarian 
Bible,  he  would  hunt  for  ever  without  finding  clip  in  it,  as  a 
command  of  Christ.  Is  it  not  strange,  then,  that  the  child 
should  attempt  such  a  task  as  this;  or  rather,  is  it  not 
strange  that  a  Baptist  writer  should  set  him  to  work  in  this 
way,  knowing  that  the  boy  never  would  succeed  V^ 

"  That  was  a  blunder,  I  confess,"  replied  Theophilus,  "  for 
you  remember  that  your  father  showed  us  last  night  that  the 
Baptists  themselves  had  well-nigh  abandoned  the  idea  of 
putting  immerse  in  the  Bible.  By  the  way,  Miss  Carrie, 
speaking  of  the  Bible  Union,  and  its  efforts  to  revise  the 
Scriptures,  reminds  me  of  some  of  the  translations  of  the 
society  which  I  saw  this  morning.^^ 

^^  Indeed  !''  said  Carrie,  '^1  would  like  to  see  them." 

"Here  they  are,"  said  Theophilus,  "and  if  I  am  any 
judge,  either  of  English  or  G-reek,  they  are  quite  ludicrous. 
They  render  John  iii.  12  thus  :  ^  If  I  said  to  you  the  earth- 
lies,  and  you  did  not  believe,  now  if  I  say  to  you  the 
Jieavenlies,  will  you  believe  V 

"  Why,  Theophilus,  that  is  perfect  nonsense.'^ 

"  Indeed  it  is ;  but  there  are  other  passages,  even  worse 
rendered  than  this." 

"  "Well,  let  me  take  the  Bible,  and  read  it  as  it  now  stands, 
and  you  read  the  revised  translation,  Theophilus.  We  shall 
be  better  able  to  see  the  contrast." 

"  Very  good.  Miss  Carrie.  We  will  commence  with  the 
passage  I  have  just  read  ; 

THE    WORD    OP    GOD.  THE    BAPTIST   BIBLE. 

"If   I  have  told   you   earthly         " If  I  said  to  you  the  earthlies, 

things,  and  ye  believe  not,  how  and  you  did  not  believe,  now  if  1 

shall  ye  believe  if  I  tell  you  of  say  to  you  the  heavenlies,  will  you 

heavenly  things?"     John  iii.  12.  believe?"     John  iii.  12. 


90 


TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 


THE   WORD   OP   GOD. 

*'  That  at  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bow,  of  things 
in  heaven,  and  things  in  earth, 
and  things  under  the  earth." 
Phil.  ii.  10. 

"For  we  wrestle  not  against 
flesh  and  blood,  but  against  prin- 
cipalities, against  powers,  against 
the  rulers  of  the  darkness  of  this 
world,  against  spiritual  wicked- 
ness in  high  places."    Eph.  vi.  12. 

"Ye  call  me  Master  and  Lord; 
and  ye  say  well,  for  so  I  am," 
John  xiii.  13. 

"  Ye  have  put  on  the  new  man." 
Col.  iii.  10. 

"Unto  me,  who  am  less  than  the 
least  of  all  saints,  is  this  grace 
given,  that  I  should  preach  among 
the  Gentiles  the  unsearchable 
riches  of  Christ."     Eph.  iii.  8. 

"Repent  ye,  therefore,  and  be 
converted,  that  your  sins  may  be 
blotted  out."     Acts  iii.  19. 

"Preach  the  word:  be  instant 
in  season,  out  of  season."  2 
Tim.  iv.  2. 

"  The  communion  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  be  with  you  all."  2  Cor. 
xiii.  14. 


THE    BAPTIST    BIBLE. 

"That  in  the  name  of  Jesus 
every  knee  should  bend  of  heaven- 
lies,  and  of  earthlies,  and  of  infer- 
naU:'     Phil.  ii.  10. 

^^ Struggle  not  against  blood  and 
flesh,  but  with  the  principalities, 
with  the  powers,  with  the  worldly 
forces  of  the  darkness  of  this  age^ 
with  the  spirituals  of  the  badjiess 
in  the  heavenlies  I"     Eph.  vi.  12. 

"You  title  me  the  Teacher,  and 
the  Lord,  and  you  designate  well, 
for  I  om."     John  xiii.  13. 

"You  have  put  on  the  young 
man."     Col.  iii.  10. 

"  To  me,  who  am  less  than  the 
least  of  all  the  consecrated,  was 
this  very  kindness  granted  to  j^ub- 
lish  among  the  nations  the  incom- 
prehensible wealth  of  the  Anoinied.^^ 
Eph.  iii.  8. 

"Repent,  therefore,  and  return, 
in  order  to  the  obliterating  of  your 
sins."     Acts  iii.  19. 

'■^Announce  the  word:  be  on 
hand  conveniently  and  inconvenient- 
ly:'    2  Tim.  iv.  2. 

"The  partnership  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  be  with  you  all."  2  Cor. 
xiii.  14. 


'^  Well,  well !"  exclaimed  Carrie,  '^  wouldn^t  they  make  a 
glorious  English  Bible !  And  these  are  the  men  who  are  to 
'  come  up  to  the  help  of  the  Lord  against  the  mighty  V 
Verily,  they  ought  to  be  ashamed  of  themselves  ! 

^'  But  I  see  that  we  have  spent  most  of  the  afternoon 
without  examining  the  merits  of  Theodosia's  arguments;  and 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  91 

if  you  conseut  we  will  meet  to-morrow  afternoon^  and  look 
into  the  book  again/' 

As  no  one  objected  to  the  proposal  of  Miss  Mason,  it  was 
agreed  that  they  would  assemble  again  on  Saturday. 

Theophilus  walked  home  with  Mary,  and  as  she  reached 
home,  he  ventured  to  whisper  to  her  that  he  thought  Carrie 
Mason  would  prove  a  very  good  match  for  Theodosia  Ernest. 
Mary  made  no  reply,  for  just  at  that  moment  she  caught  the 
eye  of  her  father,  who  was  sitting  near  the  parlor-window 
There  was  something  in  that  glance  which  boded  no  good, 
and  her  young  heart  was  in  a  moment  filled  with  gloomy 
apprehensions. 


c^i^^^tt^  ^tJ^ttitt0. 


TRIAL  OF  THE  BAPTIST  CANONS  OF  CRITICISM, 
AS  LAID  DOWN  BY  DR.  GALE,  DR.  CARSON, 
DR.  RICHARD  FULLER,  AND  OTHER  EMINENT 
BAPTISTS. 


THE  RESULT,  A  REDUCTION  TO  ABSURDITY  OF 
BAPTIST  THEORY,  BY  PROVING  THEM  ALL 
TO  BE  ENEMIES  OF  CHRIST. 


THE     MAJESTY     OT     TRUTH.  95 


SECOND  EVENING 


The  interest  excited  by  the  investigations  of  Mr.  Mason 
and  Theophilus  was  evidently  increasing.  The  probable 
results  of  these  meetings  were  very  freely  canvassed,  and  the 
course  of  Mr.  Ellis  was  made  the  subject  of  conjecture.  It 
was  plainly  impossible  for  him  to  enter  upon  a  discussion 
with  either  the  Methodist  or  Presbyterian  minister,  and  yet 
there  seemed  to  be  a  necessity  for  defence  of  some  sort. 
The  people  generally  felt  that  the  Baptist  pastor  had  unne- 
cessarily agitated  the  question  in  dispute,  and,  whatever 
might  be  the  issue,  he  could  blame  no  one  but  himself. 
The  boldness  with  which  Mr.  Ellis  ventured  upon  classical 
ground,  would  have  induced  a  stranger  to  suppose  that  he 
was  at  home  in  the  language  of  Greece.  So  far  from  this 
being  the  fact,  however,  he  could  not  read  a  sentence  in 
G-reek.  His  positions,  and  dogmatic  assertions,  were  coins 
circulated  in  his  books,  and  as  he  could  not  determine  for 
himself  whether  they  were  true  or  false,  he  took  them  for 
granted,  and  hesitated  not  to  affirm  them  as  his  own  views, 
in  the  most  solemn  manner !  While  in  the  very  act  of 
adopting  the  opinions  of  others  as  his  own,  without  exami- 
nation, he  belabored  with  zeal  the  Pedobaptists,  for  "pin- 
ning their  faith  to  the  skirts  of  men,''  and  giving  up  their 
consciences  to   scholars   and    divines  !     This   inconsistency 


96  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

was  not  observed  by  all,  but  many  intelligent  minds  saw  it, 
and  rejoiced  in  an  opportunity  of  lowering  bis  crest  a  little. 
As  for  tlie  Baptists,  tbey  were  in  trouble.  Professedly 
fond  of  controversy,  they  only  relished  it  whilst  there  was  a 
disposition  on  the  other  side  to  avoid  it-  When  the  Pedo- 
baptists  were  willing  to  meet  them,  they  were  very  solicitous 
indeed  for  the  peace  of  the  community.  They  were  then 
firmly  persuaded  that  controversy  was  an  evil  in  itself:  it 
promoted  divisions  in  families,  excited  the  worst  feelings  of 
our  natures,  and  was,  upon  the  whole,  an  evil  of  incalculable 
magnitude.  While  they  were  thus  engaged  in  depicting  the 
consequences  to  be  feared,  and,  indeed,  inseparable  from 
controversy,  the  report  reached  them  from  an  authentic 
source,  that  Mr.  Ellis  had  posted  off  a  messenger  for  Elder 
Alexander  Battle,  the  Magnus  Apollo  of  their  faith  in  that 
region.  This  intelligence  seemed  to  modify,  to  a  very  con- 
siderable extent,  the  evils  of  controversy.  They  were  now 
of  opinion  that  it  was  highly  probable  a  courteous.  Christian- 
like discussion  might  be  even  productive  of  good !  This 
sudden  change  in  their  views  was  received,  as  it  deserved  to 
be,  with  quiet  forbearance  by  their  opponents,  and  at  the 
appointed  hour  all  parties,  with  the  exception  of  a  few  of 
the  more  bigoted  sort  of  Baptists,  repaired  to  the  Methodist 
church. 

After  opening  the  meeting  with  prayer,  Mr,  Mason  began  : 
^^  Now,  Theophilus,  we  are  going  to  bring  our  Baptist 
friends  into  judgment  upon  themselves,  and  as  they  can  feel 
it  in  their  hearts  to  exclude  us  from  the  celebration  of  the 
Lord's  Supper,  we  ought  not  to  hesitate  in  giving  their 
arguments  a  little  wider  range,  even  if  they  are,  in  turn, 
thereby  expelled  from  the  Church  of  Christ.  If  they  are 
allowed  to  use  a  certain  method  of  argument  to  get  us  out  of 
the  Church,  I  see  no  reason  why  we  may  not  show  them 
that  the  same  course  of  argument  puts  them  out  too.     The 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TTvUTH.  97 

canons  of  criticism,  wliicli  I  am  now  going  to  examine,  are 
adhered  to  with  great  tenacity  by  their  writers.  Rules  for 
criticism  must  be  general,  not  special,  arbitrary,  or  excep- 
tional accommodations  of  verbal  criticism,  invented  to 
sustain  a  preconceived  opinion.  If  we  find,  then,  that  the 
canons  we  examine,  when  applied  to  other  commandments 
beside  baptism,  render  salvation  impossible,  it  follows  that 
the  canons  are  false. 

''As  I  have  hitherto  followed  the  example  of  the  Baptists 
in  making  their  opponents  prove  their  doctrine,  I  shall  con- 
tinue this  course  on  the  present  occasion.  My  first  autho- 
rity, then,  will  be  drawn  from  this  pleasant  little  book, 
'  Theodosia,^  and  as  she  is  the  '  heroine  of  faith,'  I  will  let 
her  state  the  case  fully.  When  she,  for  the  first  time  it 
seems,  witnesses  the  immersion  of  some  candidates  in  the 
river,  she  falls  into  doubt  whether  she  has  ever  been  bap- 
tized, and,  to  solve  her  difficulties,  calls  to  her  aid  sundry 
Pedobaptist  friends,  who,  instead  of  relieving  her,  confirm 
her  doubts.  They  in  vain  endeavored  to  make  her  believe 
that  mode  was  not  essential  to  the  ordinance.  She  desired 
to  know  what  particular  act  Christ  performed  when  he  was 
baptized;  that  act,  she  says,  Christ  commanded,  and  on 
page  18  you  find  her  uttering  these  words — very  good  words 
they  are,  too,  worthy  of  Theodosia,  and  very  much  to  our 
present  purpose — '  My  Saviour  died  upon  the  cross  for  my 
salvation.  I  trust  in  Him  to  save  me.  But  he  says.  If  ye 
love  me,  keep  my  commandments.  Not  this  one,  or  that 
one,  but  all  his  commandments.  How  can  I  pretend  to  love, 
if  I  do  not  obey  him  ?  If  he  commands  me  to  be  baptized, 
and  I  have  not  done  it,  /  must  do  it  yet.  And  if  that 
which  we  saw  at  the  river  was  baptism,  then  I  have  never 
been  baptized.'  These  are  Theodosia's  words,  and  whilst  I 
have  nothing  to  do  with  her  premise  and  conclusion  as  to 
5 


98  THEorniLus  walton;   or, 

baptism,  I  admit  tliat  she  speaks  truth  when  she  says  we 
must  obey  all  the  commandments  of  Christ.  I  am  now 
to  show  that  by  the  same  means  Theodosia  arrived  at  the 
conclusion  that  she  was  not  haptized,  we  necessarily  con- 
clude that  she  is  not  a  Christian.  This,  I  think,  will  be 
obvious  to  any  one  who  can  understand  a  plain  argument, 
although  I  will  not  say  with  Dr.  Waller  that  his  people  are 
orangoutangs  if  they  cannot  appreciate  the  facts. 

^'  We  start  out  with  the  principle  just  stated,  that  we  are 
to  keep  all  the  commandments  of  Christ,  and  to  keep  them 
we  must  know  what  they  are.  Thus  far,  we  are  all  agreed. 
Now,  however,  we  must  introduce  Dr.  Richard  Fuller, 
of  Baltimore.  You  will  find  the  place  in  his  book  on  Bap- 
tism, pages  13  and  14.     Read  it  aloud  for  us.'' 

'^  ^Indeed,  if  a  word  have  not  2^. precise  meaning,  how  can 
language  be  the  vehicle  of  our  thoughts  ?  The  assertion 
that  haptidzo  has  three  different  meanings,  only  proves  how 
strangely  controversy  can  blind  the  mind  to  the  plainest 
things.  Suppose  the  word  sa.w  meant  a  saw,  and  an  axe, 
and  a  nail,  how  could  a  carpenter  know  what  I  mean  when 
I  ask  for  a  saw  ?  To  say  that  a  word  means  three  distinct 
things,  is  to  say  that  it  means  neither  of  them. ^  " 

"  Now,  Theophilus,  I  need  not  tell  you  that  Dr.  Fuller  is 
high  authority  among  the  Baptists,  nor  need  I  tell  you  that 
the  assertion  made  by  Dr.  Fuller  is  founded  upon  a  total 
misapprehension  of  language.  As  I  have  reserved  this  view 
of  the  meaning  of  words  for  another  examination,  I  will  just 
here  show  you  that  facts  are  against  the  Doctor.  You  have 
studied  the  Spanish  language,  I  believe,  have  you  not  ?" 

^'  Not  a  great  deal,"  replied  Theophilus,  ^'  but  I  can  read 
a  little  of  it." 

^'  Well,  don't  you  think  the  Spaniards  have  a  vehicle  for 
their  thoughts  ?" 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  99 

"Certainly,  sir/^ 

"  Well,  do  you  remember  wliat  the  word  nail  is  ia 
Spanish  V 

"  Yes,  sir,  it  is  una." 

"  That  is  one  of  the  words  used  in  Spanish  to  correspond 
with  the  English  word  nail,  but  there  are  several  others. 
Clavo  means  an  iron  nail,  una  9.  Jinr/ei'-nail,  j)6suna  the  nail 
or  hoof  of  an  animal,  garra  the  nail  or  talon  of  a  bird. 
Here,  then,  are  four  words,  all  of  which  are  equivalent  to 
the  English  word  nail.  Now,  is  it  not  manifest  that  this 
very  word  selected  as  an  example  by  Dr.  Fuller  has  several 
meanings  in  the  English  language?  Is  there  no  diflference 
between  the  nail  of  my  finger  and  the  nail  in  this  bench  ? 
And  yet  Dr.  Fuller  says  that  if  a  word  has  more  than  one 
meaning,  it  has  none  ! 

"It  is  true,  that  if  I  were  to  ask  a  carpenter  for  a  few 
nails,  he  would  understand  me  to  mean  iro7i  nails,  and  if  I 
were  to  tell  you  that  your  nails  were  too  long,  you  would 
understand  me  to  mean  your  finger-nails.  But  I  would  use 
the  same  word  in  reference  to  two  distinct  classes  of  things, 
the  meaning  of  which  word  you  could  only  ascertain  by  the 
connection  in  which  it  was  used.  This  is  a  universal  law  of 
language ;  a  law  which  is  no  less  binding  in  our  own  than  in 
foreign  tongues. 

"But  suppose  we  take  another  of  these  three  words 
of  Dr.  Fuller,  and  try  his  rule  in  the  German  language. 
Look  in  Adler's  Dictionary,  under  the  word  heil.'^ 

"  It  means  ^  hatchet,  axe.^  " 

"  Very  well,  how  can  the  Germans  tell  the  diiference 
between  a  hatchet  and  an  axe,  for  certainly  they  are  not  the 
same  things  T^ 

"  Not  from  the  word  by  itself,"  said  Theophilus,  "  that  is 
very  clear." 

"  Well,  you  know  that  this  same  word  axe  is,  in  Spanish, 


100  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

segur ;  and  the  word  means  a  sickle,  also.  Does  it  follow, 
then,  that  the  Spaniards  cannot  tell  the  difference  between 
an  axe  and  a  sickle  f 

"  0  no,  Mr.  Mason,"  replied  Theophilus,  ^^  it  is  very 
evident  that  Dr.  Fuller's  position  is  absurd." 

^^And  yet,  upon  the  truthfulness  of  this  position  the 
whole  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion  is  based !  And 
if  Dr.  Fuller  produces  three  words  which  cannot  mean  the 
same  articles,  and  no  one  of  them  can  be  understood  as 
including  the  others,  he  only  proves  that  in  the  English 
language  what  he  asserts  is  true,  in  these  particular  cases. 
But  there  are  words,  even  in  English,  that  do  not  mean  the 
same  things  in  all  places.  This,  perhaps,  is  too  obvious  for 
us  to  spend  time  in  proving  it.  All  the  use  we  have  now 
for  this  passage  is  to  try  the  Baptists  by  the  same  rules 
which  they  use  to  try  us,  and  to  prove  that  wherein  they 
succeed  to  their  own  satisfaction,  in  proving  us  at  fault 
in  the  matter  of  baptism,  we  shall  make  them  condemn 
themselves  in  a  matter  of  infinitely  greater  importance. 

^^  AYe  have  seen  that  Theodosia  desired  to  keep  all  the 
commandments  of  Christ.  We  allow  the  position  that  we 
cannot  keep  commandments  which  we  do  not  know.  Now, 
then,  Christ  used  icords  in  giving  his  commandments,  and 
Dr.  Fuller  says  a  word  can  mean  but  one  thing — a  plain, 
literal  definition  only  can  be  allowed.  He  does  not  allow 
even  an  exception  in  favor  of  'metaphorical  usage  of  words, 
but  we  will  grant  him  that  out  of  the  abundance  of  our 
charity,  for  his  case  will  need  all  the  help  it  can  get.  Now, 
Theophilus,  you  will  oblige  me  by  taking  down  the  Bible 
from  the  desk,  and  turning  to  Luke  xiv.  27." 

"  ^And  whosoever  doth  not  bear  his  cross,  and  come  after 
me,  cannot  be  my  disciple.^ " 

^^  Do  you  consider  that  a  command  of  Christ,  Theophi- 
lus ?" 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  101 

^^  Certainly,  sir.     And    the  most   important  of  all,  inas- 
much as  if  it  is  not  obeyed  no  man  can  be  his  disciple/' 
'^  Is  it  ?i positive  command,  Theophilus  ?'' 
"  None  can  be  more  so.     Salvation  is  staked  upon  it." 
^^  Then  it  is   highly  important  for  us  to  know  luliat  it  is 
tliat  we  are  to  do.     Unless  this  is  clearly  defined,  we  shall 
err  in    an    essential    point.     Now,  what   is  the  thing  com- 
manded, Theophilus  V 
^^To  hear  our  cross." 

"  Can  you  tell  us  what  particular  act  the  Saviour  would 
have  us  to  perform  ?" 

"  I  can't  say  that  I  am  prepared  to  explain  the  passage." 
"  Now,  suppose  I  afiirm  that  no  man  can  be  saved  who 
does  not  hear  a  cross  of  tcood  on  his  shoulders,  would  you 
aOTce  with  me  ?" 

o 

^^No,  sir,  I  would  not." 

"  Well,  we  shall  see  that  the  Baptist  canons  of  criticism 
sustain  that  view  of  the  passage.  Is  the  word  cross  an  Eng- 
lish word,  Theophilus  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir,  I  suppose  so." 

"  Well,  be  pleased  to  tell  me  its  English  root." 

^^Let  me  see.     I  am  not  prepared  now,  sir." 

"  No  amount  of  research  would  help  you,  Theophilus.  It 
has  710  English  root.  We  get  the  word  from  the  French, 
croix.  But  it  came  into  the  French  from  the  Latin,  c7-ux, 
and  hence  we  get  the  word  crucify,  by  transferring  (as  the 
Baptists  say)  a  Latin  compound.  Now,  before  we  proceed, 
we  must  hear  a  little  more  from  our  authorities.  There 
is  Dr.  Carson  on  Baptism.  Bead  the  passage  marked  at  the 
foot  of  page  23." 

^^  ^The  just  and  most  obvious  method  of  ascertaining  the 
meaning  of  a  word,  is  to  examine  its  origin  and  use  in  the 
language.'  " 

^^  This  is  allowed  to  be  the  method  by  which  our  Baptist 


102  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

friends  get  their  doctrine  of  immersion.  If  the  rale  suits 
them,  let  us  see  how  it  suits  us.  Examine  Ainsworth's 
Dictionary,  and  let  us  have  the  meaning  of  crux." 

"  He  says  it  means  a  cross,  gibbet,  or  gallows,  and,  by 
metonymy,  any  thing  or  person  that  troubles,  vexes,  or  tor- 
ments us — affliction." 

'^And  so  also  does  Andrews  give  the  meaning  of  the 
word.  Well,  we  have  gotten  to  the  fountain  of  the  word, 
so  far  as  the  Latin  term  is  concerned.  But  Christ  did  not 
use  the  word  crux :  we  must  ascend  a  little  higher,  to  the 
Greek.     Do  you  remember  the  word  ?" 

''Yes,  sir,  stauros." 

''And  what  does  it  mean  ?  Examine  Liddell  and  Scott's 
Lexicon." 

"  It  means  an  upright  pale  or  stake,  and  is  used  by 
Herodotus  for  piles." 

"Well,  here  is  the  passage  from  Herodotus.  It  is  the 
5th  Book,  called  Terpsichore,  chapter  xvi.  :  '  Yet  he  endea- 
vored to  subdue  those  who  live  upon  the  lake,  in  dwellings 
contrived  after  this  manner:  planks  fitted  on  lohj piles  are 
placed  in  the  middle  of  the  lake,'  etc.  Homer  uses  the 
same  word  in  the  sense  of  a  stake  or  post.  A  transverse 
beam  fitted  to  this  stake  formed  the  cross.  Such  was  the 
meaning  of  the  word  stauros  in  our  Saviour's  time.  Now, 
then,  we  have  arrived  at  the  command — we  are  to  take  up  a 
beam  of  wood,  with  a  stake  or  pale  attached  to  it  as  an 
upright  support,  and  bear  it  daily,  otherwise  we  cannot  be 
the  disciples  of  Christ.  For,  be  it  remembered,  it  is  a  posi- 
tive command  of  Christ :  our  salvation  is  made  to  depend  on 
our  doing  or  not  doing  this  thing.  But  we  have  more  than 
a  command,  we  have  the  example  of  Christ.  Now,  if  we 
can  ascertain  how  Christ  bore  his  cross,  in  like  manner  we 
ought  to  bear  ours.  Read  the  17th  and  18  th  verses  of  the 
nineteenth  chapter  of  John." 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  103 

"  ^And  he,  bearing  liis  cross,  went  forth  into  a  place 
called  the  place  of  a  skull,  which  is  called  in  the  Hebrew 
Golgotha,  where  they  crucified  him,  and  two  others  with 
him,  on  either  side  one,  and  Jesus  in  the  midst/  '^ 

''Now,  then,  the  Saviour  bore  his  cross  upon  his 
shoulders  up  the  mountain.  Then  the  lovely  '  Theodosia/ 
if  she  would  follow  Christ,  and  keep  this  commandment, 
upon  which  her  everlasting  happiness  depends,  must  follow 
his  example.  It  is  useless  to  say  that  something  else  will 
do.  No,  verily,  the  Lord's  commandment  must  n(rt  be 
altered.  It  is  plain  and  positive — his  example  cannot  be 
misunderstood.  He  bore  the  stauros,  the  cross,  and  stauros 
has  no  other  meaning  in  the  Grreek  language.  In  all  classi- 
cal antiquity  it  was  understood  to  mean  a  beam  of  wood — 
nothing  hut  wood — not  an  example  can  be  cited  where  the 
plain,  literal  meaning  of  the  word  is  not  a  stake  or  beam  of 
wood.  Who  then  will  dare  pervert  the  word  of  God  ?  who 
will  dare  assert  that  the  daili/  carrying  of  a  wooden  cross  is 
not  absolutely  essential  to  salvation  ?  Who  will  lay  his 
hands  upon  the  ark  of  Christ's  positive  commandments,  and 
alter,  change,  or  modify  them  according  to  his  own  views  ?" 

'^  But,  Mr.  Mason,  may  it  not  be  said  that  it  is  used  here 
in  a  metaphorical  sense  V 

"No.  Did  Christ's  commandments,  his  positive  com- 
mandments, consist  of  metap)hors  ?  Is  it  a  metaphorical 
cross  that  we  are  to  bear?  No.  The  canons  we  follow 
require  the  plain,  literal  meaning.  A  word  can  have  but 
one  meaning,  says  Dr.  Fuller;  we  must  find  out  that  mean- 
ing by  the  origin  and  use  of  the  word  in  the  Greek  lan- 
guage, says  Dr.  Carson.  It  is  never  used  figuratively  in  the 
Greek  language,  and  therefore  we  cannot  allow  it  to  be  a 
figure  of  speech.  Now,  what  becomes  of  our  Baptist  friends  ?" 

''  Why,  they  are  not  bearing  their  cross,  that  is  evident/' 
replied  Theophilus. 


104  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^And  consequently  cannot  be  saved,  as  they  are  not  and 
cannot  be  the  disciples  of  Christ." 

^'  Verily,  that  argument  reduces  obedience  to  Christ  to  an 
impossibility,'^  remarked  Theophilus. 

•  "  So  it  does,"  remarked  Mr.  Mason.  ''  But  is  the  argu- 
ment illogical  ?  I  have  taken  the  very  ground  occupied  by 
the  Baptists  to  prove  the  necessity  of  immersion.  Let  us 
reduce  it  to  a  narrower  compass.  1.  Obedience  to  Christ  is 
necessary  to  salvation.  2.  Christ  commands  us  to  bear  our 
cross.  3.  He,  therefore,  who  does  not  bear  his  cross  cannot 
be  saved.  1.  No  word  can  have  more  than  one  meaning. 
2.  The  original,  common,  current  usage  determines  that 
meaning.  3.  But  the  word  stauros  (or  cross)  was  invaria- 
bly used  to  designate  a  beam  of  wood.  Therefore  Christ 
commanded  the  bearing  of  a  cross  of  wood  as  an  absolute 
prerequisite  to  salvation.     Now,  where  is  the  fallacy?" 

^^Not  in  the  conclusion,  that  is  evident,"  replied  Theo- 
philus. 

''  Then  it  must  be  in  the  premises,"  said  Mr.  Mason. 
"  But  which  of  them  is  wrong  ?" 

^^  The  first,  undoubtedly.  Words  can  and  do  have  more 
than  one  meanins;." 

^' Yes,  for  this  we  have  just  demonstrated.  Now,  if  the 
Baptist  rule,  stated  by  Gale,  Carson,  and  Fuller,  establishes 
an  absurdity,  it  cannot  be  correct.  So  far  from  establishing 
the  necessity  of  recurring  to  original  meanings  for  our 
words,  the  very  contrary  is  the  case  by  the  operation  of  this 
canon.  Applied  to  the  words  faith,  righteousness,  justifica- 
tion, law,  regeneration,  conversion,  and  indeed  the  whole 
vocabulary  of  Christian  terms,  the  same  result  will  follow ; 
and  for  obvious  reasons  :  if  words  are  signs  of  ideas,  the 
latter  must,  in  point  of  time,  precede  the  former — ideas 
must  exist  before  words.  But  no  man  can  believe  that  the 
ideas  incorporated  in    the  Christian  system  existed  before 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  105 

tliey  were  revealed.  It  would  be  impossible  for  a  licatlien 
Greek,  by  the  mere  ordinary  use  of  words  in  liis  native 
tongue,  to  have  any  conception  of  Christianity.  Upon  any 
other  supposition  revelation  becomes  superfluous.  Any 
Greek  moralist  could  combine  the  principles  of  the  system 
without  the  aid  of  Christ  or  his  apostles.  All  the  miracu- 
lous endowments  of  the  apostolic  age  were  designed,  not  to 
frame  a  system  out  of  existing  words,  but  to  give  new  ideas 
through  existing  words.  Therefore  the  dawn  of  Christianity 
was  the  inauguration  of  a  neio  language  among  men.  The 
appropriation  of  certain  terms  which,  whatever  may  have 
been  the  existing  usage,  would  best  serve  to  convey  the 
mind  of  the  Spirit,  was  a  nece>ssity  in  the  nature  of  the  case. 
Inspired  with  a  new  meaning,  these  terms,  whether  uttered 
by  the  lips  of  Christ  or  his  chosen  messengers,  could  not 
possibly  convey  the  sense  of  the  Divine  Spirit  without  a 
direct,  immediate  influence  upon  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the 
hearers.  Hence  we  derive  the  explanation  of  the  remark- 
able ignorance  of  the  apostles  with  regard  to  fundamental 
truths  before  the  death  of  Christ.  He  told  them  repeat- 
edly and  explicitly  that  he  was  come  to  suffer  and  die  for 
them,  yet  they  understood  not  what  he  said.  And  why? 
Simply  because  the  cross  and  crime  were  inseparably  con- 
nected in  their  minds.  They  could  not  believe  that  he  was 
going  to  commit  crime  ;  and  therefore  they  could  not  believe 
that  he  would  die  on  the  cross.  They  mourned  him  as  one 
dead  and  for  ever  lost,  when  he  was  placed  in  the  grave : 
they  thought  he  was  to  redeem  Israel,  and  yet  were  disap- 
pointed when  he  died,  not  knowing  that  the  redemption  was 
secured  by  his  death.  But  when  the  Spirit  descended  on 
th^  day  of  Pentecost,  their  eyes  were  opened.  They  saw  the 
beauty  of  God's  truth  as  they  had  not  seen  it  before. 
They  were  endued  with  power  from  on  high,  and  then  the 
same  words  which  had  been  used  before,  which  had  appeared 
5* 


106  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

to  them  inscrutable,  were  filled  with  light,  life,  and  power. 
Thcj  carried  this  power  with  them,  and  wherever  they 
went  their  words  were  attended  by  miraculous  influence 
— the  Spirit  opening  the  spiritual  sight  and  hearing  of  those 
to  whom  they  preached,  at  the  same  time  that  outward 
miracles  appealed  to  the  bodily  senses. 

^'  So  far  as  the  ordinance  of  baptism  is  concerned,  it  is 
positively  certain  that  the  apostles,  during  the  life  of  our 
Saviour,  knew  very  little  about  it.  If  we  were  to  grant  the 
position  of  the  Baptists,  that  John's  baptism  is  identical 
either  in  its  mode  or  object  with  the  Christian,  and  that 
the  design  of  both  is  to  show  forth  the  death,  burial,  and 
resurrection  of  Christ,  we  have  positive  evidence  from  the 
inspired  writings  that  the  apostles  did  not  so  understand  it. 
Peter  rebuked  Christ  because  he  foretold  his  death,  and  yet 
we  are  required  to  believe  that  Peter  had  repeatedly  seen 
that  death  represented  in  baptism. 

^'  If  it  be  true,  then,  that  we  are  not  to  look  for  the  ideas 
of  Christianity  in  heathen  words,  we  must  go  to  another 
source.  The  whole  argument  based  upon  classical  usage  is 
of  no  value.  If  that'  usage  in  every  case  required  immer- 
sion as  the  sense  of  haptidzo,  the  mode  would  not  be 
settled.  It  could  not  therefore  be  inferred  that  immersion 
was  the  practice  of  the  apostles,  or  that  it  is  now  obligatory 
upon  Christians.  To  the  record  of  Divinely-inspired  men 
must  be  the  ultimate  appeal.  If  that  record  does  not  posi- 
tively fix  the  mode,  ten  thousand  examples  from  Homer,  or 
Hesiod,  or  Lycophron,  or  any  other  or  all  of  the  poets  and 
historians  in  the  Greek  language,  could  never  render 
immersion  the  duty  of  Christians  and  the  command  of 
Christ.  ^ 

The  examples  I  have  given  in  trying  the  Baptist  canons 
of  criticism,  are  but  specimens  of  a  class  of  words  which 
form  the  dividing  line  between  heathenism  and  Christianity. 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  107 

If  we  apply  the  same  test  to  other  commandments  of 
Christ,  we  reach  the  same  result.  Our  Saviour  distinctly 
says  that  a  man  must  hate  his  father,  and  mother,  and  even 
his  own  life,  for  the  sake  of  Christ,  else  he  cannot  be  his  dis- 
ciple. No  man  will  dispute  that  the  Grreek  word  (rtiiseo) 
translated  to  hate,  refers  originally,  generally,  nay,  univer- 
sally in  heathen  usage,  to  the  worst  passion  that  can  deform 
the  nature  of  man.  If  we  follow  the  rule  that  a  word  must 
be  rendered  by  its  original,  ordinary  sense,  and  that  it  can 
have  but  one  meaning,  we  make  the  Prince  of  peace  com- 
mand, as  essential  to  his  service,  the  transformation  of 
our  nature  into  that  almost  if  not  quite  diabolical. 
Yet  we  cannot  suppose  our  Baptist  friends  have  calculated 
these  legitimate  consequences  of  their  theory.  After  they 
have  framed  their  methods  of  criticism  to  establish  their 
point,  they  are  quite  willing  to  abandon  them  when  other 
doctrines  are  at  stake. 

^^  Suppose  we  apply  their  reasoning  to  the  sacrament  of 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Christ  spoke  of  it,  when  it  was  insti- 
tuted, as  his  own  body  and  blood  that  were  divided  to  the 
disciples.  No  language  can  be  plainer  than  that  which  he 
us^s.  '  This  is  my  body,'  he  says;  Uhis  is  the  New  Testa- 
ment in  my  blood.'  He  had  previously  said,  ^  Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  Man,  and  drink  his  blood,  ye 
have  no  life  in  you.'  You  know  very  well,  Theophilus, 
what  blasphemous  teachings  the  Church  of  Home  has  on 
this  subject,  and  their  strong  position  is,  that  the  words  of 
Christ  are  to  bg  taken  in  their  plain,  obvious,  ordinary 
sense.  This,  they  affirm,  is  shown  distinctly  by  the  fact 
that  they  are  repeated,  and  never  otherwise  explained  by 
Christ.  In  this  interpretation  Dr.  Fuller's  and  Dr.  Carson's 
rules  fully  sustain  them.  If  words  have  only  one  meaning, 
and  that  the  one  in  common  use,  the  case  is  made  out.  So 
by  the  same  premises  used  to  establish  immersion,  we  have 


108  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

transubstantiation  also.  Nor  can  any  exception  be  argued 
in  tliis  case,  for  if  one  ordinance  requires  an  exception  from 
such  a  rule  to  vindicate  it,  the  oilier  may  also,  and  so  the 
authors  of  the  canon  fail  of  their  desisru. 

o 

'^And  now,  Theophilus,  let  us  examine  some  of  those 
words  which  are  used  by  our  Baptist  friends  to  express  their 
views  of  baptism.  You  have  often  heard  their  objection  to 
baptize,  that  it  is  a  Greek  word,  changed  only  in  one  or  two 
letters.     What  words  do  they  use  in  its  place  V 

"  Immerse,  dip,  and  plunge.'' 

^^Yes,  these  are  all,  I  believe.  Do  you  consider  these 
words  synonymous  in  meaning  V 

"  Not  exactly,  I  should  think,  but  sufficiently  so  for  the 
purpose." 

'^  Sufficiently  so  for  their  purpose,  undoubtedly.  But  are 
these  words  all  native  English  ?" 

^^Noj  sir;  one  of  them  is  from  the  Latin,  and  the  other 
two  from  the  G-reek,  I  should  think." 

^^Well,  which  is  from  the  Latin?" 

^^  Immerse,  from  the  verb  immerrjo." 

''  Have  you  ever  met  with  this  verb  immergo  in  Latin 
writers  ?"  * 

'^  Yery  frequently." 

^'  Have  you  ever  met  with  it  above  two  hundred  years 
before  Christ?" 

^'  Only  in  the  comedies  of  Plautus,  but  not  quite  that  far 
back." 

^' It  is  usually  found  in  writers  of  the  ^Augustan  age,  as 
it  is  called,  is  it  not  ?" 

'^Yes,  sir;  in  Ovid,  Cicero,  Yirgil,  and,  later,  in 
Pliny." 

^'  Suppose  we  try  our  Baptist  rule  with  this  word  immergo ; 
perhaps  we  may  get  some  light  on  the  subject  of  common 
usage.      Will   you    examine    the    Fourth    Book  of    Ovid's 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  109 

Metamorphoses,  line  423,  and  tell  us  how  the  poet  uses 
immcrgo  ?     There  is  the  book  on  the  table." 

"It  seems  that  he  is  representing  Juno  lamenting  the 
destruction  of  the  Maeonian  sailors,  and  says  they  were  over- 
wlielmied  in  the  sea.'^ 

"  Very  well,  Theophilus ;  were  these  sailors  only  dipped 
in  the  sea?     I  should  think  that  a  slight  cause  of  sorrow.'' 

''No,  sir;  I  suppose  they  went  to  the  bottom.  They  evi- 
dently were  drowned." 

''  True  enough.  Now  examine  the  thirteenth  book,  and 
tell  us  how  Hecuba  pulled  out  the  eyes  of  the  Odrysian 
king." 

"  Ovid  says  she  plunged  her  hands  into  his  eyes." 

"  Well,  do  you  think  she  dipped  her  hands  into  the  sockets 
of  his  eyes  ?" 

"  No,  sir ;  I  suppose  she  pulled  out  his  eyeballs,  and  tore 
the  flesh  with  her  fingers." 

"  You  would  not  call  this  act  a  dipping,  then,  I  suppose  ?" 

"  No,  sir;  it  cannot  be  so  called,  even  by  a  poetic  license." 

"  Yery  good.  Now,  if  you  will  examine  the  sixth  book 
of  the  jiEneid,  you  will  find  the  word  again." 

''  The  poet  tells  us  that  Triton  had  inveigled  Misenus  be- 
tween two  rocks,  and  overwhelmed  him  in  the  foaming  bil- 
lows." 

"And  Misenus,  then,  was  drowned,  was  he  not  ?" 

"Yes,  sir,  undoubtedly." 

"  He  was,  then,  more  than  merely  dipped  in  the  foaming 
billows.  Now,  Theophilus,  would  you  have  any  reason  to 
believe  that  the  body  of  Misenus  was  found  afterwards  on 
the  beach,  if  the  poet  had  not  explicitly  said  so  in  another 
part  of  the  story?" 

"  Of  course  I  would  not.  It  would  be  most  reasonable  to 
suppose  that  he  was  devoured  by  the  monsters  of  the  deep." 

"  Very  well.     We  might  examine  a  number  of  passages, 


110  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

all  bearing  the  same  testimony.  Pliny  tells  us  of  a  river 
that  was  immersed,  or  immersed  itself  into  the  sea;  or,  as 
Andrews  properly  renders  it,  ^poared  itself  into  the  sea/ 
Certainly  the  river  did  not  dip  itself  into  the  sea.  We 
conclude,  then,  that  the  Latins  ordinarily  used  the  word 
immergo  to  express  the  sinking  or  overwlielming  of  a  person, 
usually  for  the  purpose  of  drowning.  Now,  if  a  word  can 
have  but  one  meaning,  and  that  the  current  one,  in  the  lan- 
guage to  which  it  belongs,  why  do  our  Baptist  friends  adhere 
to  immerse  ?  Is  it  not  a  Latin  word,  as  truly  as  haptize  is  a 
Greek  one  ?  And  if  its  current  meaning,  when  applied  to 
persons,  was  that  of  droivning,  why  do  they  reject  it  now, 
and  force  another  idea  into  the  word  V 

^'Drs.  Fuller  and  Carson  will  certainly  compel  them  to 
take  the  word  in  this  sense  of  drowning ;  but  will  it  not  be 
said  that  you  do  not  allow  the  Latins  to  have  the  idea  of 
dipping  V 

"No,  there  is  no  need  of  that.  Read  this  passage  in 
Ovid,  book  vii.,  v.  260  'J' 

'^•^  Medea,  with  dishevelled  hair,  goes  round  the  blazing 
altars,  like  a  worshipper  of  Bacchus,  and  dips  her  torches, 
split  into  many  parts,  in  the  trench,  black  with  blood,  and 
lights  them,  thus  dipt,  at  the  two  altars.^ '' 

''  There  is  a  case  of  dipping,  beyond  a  doubt.  But  is 
the  word  immergo  ?^' 

"No,  sir;  it  is  intingoJ' 

"  Very  well.  We  have  a  word,  then,  which  means  to  dip ; 
but  you  see  very  plainly  that  the  action  mentioned  here  is 
very  different  from  either  of  those  we  examined  before. 
The  drowning  of  sailors,  and  of  a  hero,  is  called  an  immer- 
sion, by  Ovid  and  Virgil;  and  also  the  plunging  of  a 
woman's  fingers  into  the  eyes  of  a  man,  in  all  of  which  the 
act  of  dipping  is  not  and  cannot  be  understood.  Here,  how- 
ever, we  have  a  woman  taking  a  torch,  and  dipping  it  in  a 


THE     MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  Ill 

trencli  full  of  blood ;  and  tlie  action,  so  evidently  similar  to 
the  action  of  the  baptism  of  our  Baptist  friends,  is  not  called 
an  immersion,  but  is  expressed  by  a  very  different  word, 
intingoJ' 

^'  They  ought  to  call  baptize  intinge,  then,  I  suppose  V 

"  Yes,  according  to  their  principles,  if  they  will  adhere  to 
dipping.  But  we  have  spent  time  enough  on  the  Latin 
word  :  suppose  we  examine  briefly  the  others.  What  is  the 
root  of  dip  P" 

"Dupto,  I  suppose." 

''Yes,  that  is  the  Greek  word,  from  which  we  get  the 
English  word  dip.  Have  you  ever  seen  this  word  in  the 
Greek  Testament,  Theophilus  ?" 

''No,  sir;  I  have  never  noticed  it  there." 

"  Nor  have  I.     How  do  you  account  for  this  ?" 

"  I  suppose  it  was  not  needed,  as  the  idea  of  dipping  could 
be  expressed  by  other  words." 

"Are  you  confident  that  the  idea  of  dipping  is  in  the  New 
Testament,  Theophilus  ?" 

"  I  am  not  sure  that  I  understand  you." 

"  Well,  I  will  explain.  Do  you  think  that  the  idea  of 
submerging  a  body,  or  thing,  and  immediately  bringing  it 
out  of  the  fluid,  is  anywhere  found  in  the  New  Testament?" 

"  I  have  always  thought  so,  inasmuch  as  we  are  told  that 
certain  persons  were  baptized  in  a  river." 

"  But  we  shall  see  that  the  idea  of  dipping  is  not  a  neces- 
sity in  that  case.  When  we  come  to  examine  the  Scripture 
baptisms,  I  think  I  shall  show  you  that  dipping  is  not  a 
necessary  inference  in  any  instance,  and  that  it  is  not  abso- 
lutely expressed.  For  the  present,  however,  I  assume  that 
the  action  denominated  baptism  by  our  Baptist  friends 
is  not  expressed  by  the  legitimate  and  proper  word  (dup>t6) 
in  the  Greek  Testament.  I  affirm,  moreover,  that,  according 
to   Baptist   rules   of   criticism,    no  other   word   in  English 


112  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

besides  dij)  does  express  the  action  which  they  use  as  essen- 
tial to  baptism.  Webster  gives,  as  the  primary  meaning 
of  di'i^,  ^  to  put  into  a  fluid  and  withdraw :'  this  is  their 
baptism,  and  nothing  else  is.  Let  us  follow  Dr.  Fuller's  rule, 
that  a  word  has  only  one  meaning,  and  Dr.  Carson's,  that  the 
meaning  must  be  the  ordinary,  usual  one,  and  we  limit  the 
word  at  once.  This  will  be  in  agreement  with  the  Greek 
dujDto.  But  immerse  means  to  sink,  to  go  to  the  bottom,  to 
be  drowned  as  a  consequence.  Remember  that  I  am  now 
abiding  by  the  Baptist  rule,  not  by  my  own.  Whether  im- 
merse does  not  noio  signify  to  dip,  is  not  a  question.  We 
want  the  original  common  usage  in  Latin.  The  Baptists,  as 
we  have  seen,  admit  that  baptize  is  now  a  generic  word ;  but 
they  say  it  was  once  a  word  of  mode,  and  its  original  meaning 
they  define  to  be  dip.  Now,  we  admit  that  immerse  has,  in 
modern  usage,  become  equivalent  to  dlj) ;  but  as  sinJcing  and 
dipping  are  two  actions-,  just  as  distinct  as  pouring  and 
sprinkling,  or  pouring  and  dipping,  we  must  limit  immersion 
to  sinking.  It  is  true,  that  in  the  action  of  dipping,  the 
body  sinks  in  the  water,  but  it  must  rise  again  out  of  it,  or 
the  body  is  not  dipped.  Now,  this  act  of  rising  out  of  a 
flood  is  not  included  in  the  idea  of  sinking,  but  is  positively 
opposed  to  it.  This  last  idea  of  rising  up  or  out  of,  is  ex- 
pressed in  Latin  by  the  word  emergo,  which  is  the  opposite 
of  immergo,  as  you  see  from  the  prefixes,  tm  and  e.  Now, 
inasmuch  as  Mr.  Courtney,  the  Baptist  schoolmaster  who 
merits  the  honor  of  leading  the  fair  Theodosia  into  the  path 
of  duty,  gives  us  a  specimen  of  logical  reasoning  from 
mathematical  axioms,  let  us  follow  his  example.  It  is  ad- 
mitted that  immergo  takes  one  into  the  water,  but  the  assist- 
ance of  emergo  is  required  to  bring  him  out ;  then  the  action 
of  dipping  is  compound.  Now,  it  is  an  axiom  in  mathe- 
matics, that  the  icliole  is  equal  to  all  its  parts.  This  is  evi- 
dent.    It  is  equallv  evident  that  one  part  i«  '»'^*  pr-nal  +n  ^^-r. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  113 

whole.  If,  then,  dipping  is  the  putting  of  a  body  in,  and  the 
taking  gf  a  body  out  of  a  fluid,  and  immergo  expresses  one 
action,  and  emergo  the  other,  neither  emergo  nor  immergo 
alone  can  be  equivalent  to  dip,  inasmuch  as  the  half  is  not 
equal  to  the  whole  of  an  action.  We  conclude,  therefore, 
inasmuch  as  the  action  required  is  dipping,  it  can  never  be 
done  by  immersion ;  not  by  immersion  alone :  this  no  one 
can  dispute.  Now,  let  me  ask  you  what  authority  the  Bap- 
tists have  for  making  the  meaning  of  two  Latin  words,  which 
were  originally  directly  opposed  to  each  other,  to  be  ex- 
pressed by  only  one  of  them  ?  What  authority  have  they 
for  combining  two  contrary  actions  into  a  word  expressing 
only  one  of  the  two  ?  Can  they  make  a  part  equal  to  the 
whole  ?  And  as  the  Latins  required  tivo  words  to  express 
the  action  which  they  call  baptism,  how  does  it  happen  that 
thei/  can  do  without  one  half  of  the  idea  ?  I  care  nothing 
for  their  plea  that  the  emersion  is  a  necessity  :  it  is  not  such 
in  the  word  which  they  call  baptism ;  and,  by  their  own 
rules,  they  have  no  right  to  use  a  word  for  an  ordinance 
which  only  expresses  one  half  of  the  action.  If  Christ  com- 
manded immersion,  then  they  have  no  right  to  add  emersion 
to  his  ordinance.  The  words  are  positively  opposed  to  each 
other :  they  can  only  form  a  comjjound  action,  and  no  j)(^^'i 
of  a  compound  is  equal  to  the  lohole." 

''Verily,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  ''you  are  getting 
our  friends  into  difficulty.  These  are  nice  points  of  criti- 
cism." 

"I  am  following  their  example,  Theophilus.  Whilst  they 
resort  to  a  nice  verbal  criticism,  in  order  to  unchurch  us,  we 
are  certainly  justified  in  using  their  own  method  to  show 
how  they  fail  in  the  attempt. 

"Water  and  oil  are  opposites  in  chemistry;  an  alkali 
unites  them  into  one  substance,  which  we  call  socq:).  Nei- 
ther water,  oil,  nor  alkali  alone  will  make  soap,  nor  will  any 


114  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

two  of  the  three  parts  form  the  compound.  It  is  just  as 
proper  to  say  that  oil  is  soap,  as  immersion  is  dipping,  for 
as  the  compound  substance  is  formed  of  three  ingredients, 
just  so  is  the  compound  action  of  dipping  formed  of  two 
opposite,  simple  actions. 

^^  Nor  is  this  all.  Dipping  a  part  of  a  body  is  not  dip- 
ping the  whole  of  it.  That  is  self-evident.  If,  then,  our 
Baptist  friends  do  not  dip  the  whole  body  of  their  candi- 
dates, they  do  not  baptize  by  dipping.  Did  you  ever  see  a 
man  dijp'pedj  Theophilus  ?" 

"  Yes,  sir,  I  have  seen  many  covered  up  in  the  water,  and 
brought  out  again. '^ 

^^  Were  they  covered  up  all  at  once,  or  gradually  ?" 

"  Well,  their  heads  and  shoulders  were  covered  up  in  a 
moment.^' 

"  Yes,  their  heads  and  shoulders  were  covered  up,  but  the 
head  and  shoulders  do  not  constitute  the  whole  body.  Did 
the  baptizer  dip  only  their  heads  and  shoulders  ?'^ 

'^  That  was  all,  sir;  they  were  standing  in  the  water  when 
he  took  hold  of  them.'^ 

'^Very  well;  then  he  only  dipped  their  heads. and  shoul- 
ders ;  the  remainder  of  the  body  he  did  not  dip ;  and  as  the 
dipping  of  the  whole  body  is  required  to  constitute  a  valid 
baptism,  then  those  persons  were  not  baptized." 

^'Indeed!"  said  Theophilus;  '^I  never  thought  of  that 
before.     The  Baptists  do  not  dip  ?" 

"  I  will  let  you  answer  the  question  for  yourself.  Would 
the  Baptists  allow  you  to  baptize  yourself?" 

^'No,  sir,  of  course  not." 

"  Well,  would  they  allow  you  to  perform  any  part  of  the 
ordinance;  such,  for  instance,  as  dipping  your  head  under 
water,  while  the  preacher  repeated  the  formula?" 

"I  suppose  they  do  not  permit  the  subject  to  perform  any 
part  of  the  ordinance." 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  115 

"Well,  is  going  into  the  water  up  to  your  breast  a  part 
of  the  ordinance,  or  only  2l preparation  for  it?'' 

"'  I  should  think  it  was  only  a  preparation — certainly  not 
a  part  of  the  ordinance/' 

"  Very  well ;  when  you  have  gone  into  the  water  breast- 
deep,  are  you  baptized  ?'' 

"  Certainly  not." 

"  Neither  altogether  nor  partly  baptized  V^ 

"  No,  sir,  neither.'' 

"Well,  then,  you  see  at  once  that  the  mere  act  of  dipping 
the  head  and  shoulders  of  the  subject  constitutes  their  baptism. 
The  rest  of  the  body  being  submerged  by  his  own  act,  the 
subject  only  receives  from  the  administrator  the  baptism  of 
the  upper  portion  of  his  body.  If  the  baptism  is  the  act  of 
the  administrator,  this  is  evident;  if  it  is  a  conjoint  action, 
and  the  subject  performs  one-half  of  it,  then  he  may  per- 
form the  other,  and  baptize  himself  altogether.  If,  then, 
dipping  a  part  is  not  dipping  the  whole,  and  dipping  the 
whole  body  is  essential,  it  follows  that  Baptist  preachers  do 
not  dip  their  subjects,  and  therefore  they  do  not  use  their 
own  theory  of  baptism." 

"  Why,  Mr.  Mason,  I  had  no  idea  that  you  were  such  a 
dialectician.  Really,  you  will  unsettle  some  of  our  Baptist 
friends  if  you  persist  with  this  method  of  reasoning. '^ 

"  I  only  wish  to  show  the  consequences  of  their  own 
theory ;  and  as  they  take  certain  positions  to  prove  that 
I  am  not  baptized,  I  take  their  own  ground,  and  prove  that 
they  are  not  either ;  so,  admitting  certain  premises,  we  are 
all  in  a  quandary ;  and  in  such  circumstances  they  have  no 
right  to  glory." 

"  You  consider,  then,  Mr.  Mason,  that  the  act  of  dipping 
must  be  done  wholly  by  the  administrator  ?" 

"  Certainly.  No  Church  recognizes  the  right  of  a  man  to 
baptize  himself.' 


116  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^But,  Mr.  Mason,  no  one  could  he  dipped  as  you 
describe. '^ 

"  Why  not,  Tlieopliilus  V 

^'For  many  reasons.  It  would  be  impossible  to  dipj 
literally,  a  full-grown  man  into  a  river  or  pool  of  water.^^ 

"  Not  impossible,  Tlieopliilus.  I  grant  tbat  it  is  not  con- 
venient; but,  then,  if  Christ  commanded  us  to  dip  the 
whole  body,  we  ought  to  do  it,  cost  what  it  may ;  otherwise 
we  disobey  the  great  Head  of  the  Church.  But  are  you  not 
aware  that  the  very  sort  of  dipping  which  I  have  described 
was  practiced  in  the  Church  for  several  ages  V 

''No,  sir,  I  did  not  know  it.  I  supposed  the  baptism 
which  I  have  been  told  was  current  until  the  age  of  Eliza- 
beth in  England  was  exactly  like  our  own." 

''  Then  you  are  mistaken.  You  remember  that  '  Theo- 
dosia'  finds  the  often-told  and  worn-out  story  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
refusing  to  baptize  an  infant  in  Savannah,  because  the 
parents  would  not  have  it  dipped.  Now  the  baptism  of 
infants  by  submersion  is  clearly  a  case  of  dipping.  The 
minister  takes  the  child  in  his  hands,  and  literally  dips  it  in 
the  water  of  the  font.  This  is  the  true  and  proper  action 
of  baptism,  according  to  Baptist  teachings,  and  nothing 
else  is,  and  as  they  do  not  practice  any  thing  resembling  it, 
they  condemn  themselves. 

''  Just  here  let  me  mention  another  thing  in  connection 
with  the  version  of  the  Bible  made  in  the  time  of  King 
James.  '  Theodosia's'  brother  Edwin  says,  as  recorded  on 
page  27,  that  '  the  Baptist  preacher  told  Mr.  Anxious,  the 
other  day,  that  baptize  and  baptism  were  not  English  words 
at  all,  but  the  G-reek  words  haptidzo  and  haptismos  trans- 
ferred into  the  English  Bible,  and  not  translated.  He  said 
that  King  James  icoidd  not  permit  the  translators  to  trans- 
late all  the  words,  ybr  year  of  disturhing  the  faith  and  prac- 
tice of  the  Church  of  England,  and  so  they  just  kept  the 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  117 

Greek  word ;  but  if  tliey  had  translated  it  at  all,  it  must 
have  read  dip  or  immerse,  instead  of  baptize/  You  have 
ah'eady  seen  that  this  ^  Baptist  preacher'  had  no  authority  for 
saying  the  king  laid  any  restrictions  upon  the  translators, 
for  he  is  exculpated  by  a  Baptist  writer  who  has  examined 
the  whole  history  of  the  transaction.  That  he,  the  ^  Baptist 
preacher,'  was  simply  deceiving  both  Edwin  and  Mr. 
Anxious  about  the  king's  fear  that  the  practice  and  faith  of 
the  Church  of  England  would  be  disturbed  if  haptidzo 
were  translated  to  dip  or  immerse,  I  will  now  show  you.  It 
is  indeed  strange  that  Edwin's  ^Baptist  preacher'  and 
Theodosia's  schoolmaster  should  be  brought  into  collision  in 
the  same  book,  but  so  it  is.  The  'preacher'  says,  that  if 
the  word  haj^tidzo  had  been  rendered  to  dip,  the  practice  of 
the  Church  of  England  would  have  been  disturbed.  Mr. 
Courtney,  quoting  Dr.  Wall,  says,  on  page  177  :  'As  for 
sprinkling,  properly  so  called,  it  was  at  1645  Just  then 
hcgijming,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must  have  begun  in 
the  disorderly  times  after  forty-one.'  Well,  pray  what  was 
the  practice  of  the  Church  of  England  prior  to  1645  ?  If 
it  was  neither  sprinkling  nor  dipping,  it  must  have  been 
p)ourvng.  But  the  contrary  is  the  fact.  Dr.  Wall's 
authority,  Mr.  Blake,  who  wrote  in  1645,  says  that  he  had 
seen  many  infants  dipped.  The  Prayer  Book,  published  in 
1549,  required  the  infant  to  be  dipped  three  times.  And 
Dr.  Wall  says  that  the  dipping  of  infants  was  the  practice 
of  the  Church  in  the  first  part  of  the  reign  of  King  James. 
The  English  Bible  was  published,  then,  when  the  rubric  of 
the  Church  of  England  required  the  infant  to  he  dipped^ 
and  if  this  was  the  practice  of  the  Church,  how  could  the 
translating  of  haptidzo  to  dip  alter  it  V 

''1  am  surprised,  Mr.  Mason,  at  that  information,  for  I 
thought  the  very  reverse  was  true  :  that  baptize  was  placed 
in  the  English  version  to  support  an  innovation.'' 


118  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

*'No,  Theophilus,  it  is  a  very  great  mistake.  Dipping 
was  the  practice  of  the  Church ;  the  rubric  of  the  Church  of 
England  required  it  in  1611,  and  the  king  was  the  head  of 
the  Church.  How,  then,  could  he  exclude  dipping  from 
the  Bible,  in  order  to  sustain  his  Church  ?  Is  it  not  mani- 
fest that  if  he  had  interfered  with  it  at  all,  he  icovM  have 
2Jlaced  it  in  the  Bible,  and  thus  sustained  his  Church  by  it? 
If  the  translators  had  desired  to  sustain  the  Church,  certainly 
they  would  have  made  the  Bible  just  what  the  Baptists  want 
it,  favorable  to  immersion.  But  they  did  not,  and  thus  we 
turn  their  assertion  against  them.  The  i^resent  version  of 
the  Bible  was  made  by  a  Church  ichich  practiced  bajDtism  by 
dipping,  and,  if  there  is  any  unfairness  in  it,  Pedobaptists 
have  a  right  to  complain,  but  the  Baptists  are  bound  over  to 
silence  J' 

^^I  have  been  frequently  astonished,  Mr.  Mason,  at  the 
facts  which  you  have  developed,  and  really  you  have  ex- 
posed so  many  of  the  Baptist  authorities,  that  I  shall  be 
compelled  to  handle  them  with  suspicion." 

"  I  am  sorry  to  say  it,  Theophilus,  but  it  is  nevertheless 
true.  This  very  writer,  who  gives  Dr.  Wall's  language  in 
'  Theodosia,'  has  perverted  his  meaning,  and  misrepresented 
him  grossly.  This  I  will  show  you  when  we  come  to  the 
history  of  baptism.  For  the  present,  however,  what  I  have 
said  will  suffice.  The  evening  is  far  spent,  and  I  will  not 
detain  you  much  longer.  Let  us  sum  up.  We  have 
granted  the  position  of  the  Baptists,  that  a  word  can  have 
but  one  meaning ;  that  the  common  usage  of  the  language 
must  determine  that  meaning.  From  these  premises  we  have 
examined  that  commandment  of  Christ  which  requires  us  to 
bear  our  cross  ;  we  have  found  the  meaning  of  the  word  cross 
to  be  a  beam  of  wood,  and  as  no  one  can  be  a  disciple  of 
Christ  who  does  not  bear  his  cross,  so  no  one  can  be  saved 
who  does  not  bear  about  with  him  a  beam  of  wood. 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  119 

"  Thus  we  have  reduced  to  absurdity  the  logic  which 
establishes  immersion  as  the  only  mode  of  baptism,  simply 
because  classical  usage  may  be  in  its  favor.  Without  these 
arbitrary  assumptions  of  Drs.  Carson  and  Fuller,  the  Baptists 
cannot  make  immersion  essential  to  baptism ;  with  these 
assumptions,  and  tested  by  them,  their  claims  to  Christianity 
are  destroyed.  It  follows,  then,  that  the  premises  are  false, 
and  therefore  the  argument  built  upon  them  is  worthless. 
We  have  seen,  also,  that  the  proper  act  of  dipping,  which 
Baptists  declare  to  be  the  only  valid  mode  of  Christian 
baptism,  was  practiced  in  the  English  Church  during  the 
reign  of  King  James,  when  our  present  version  of  the 
Bible  was  made.  Therefore,  inasmucli  as  dipping  the 
whole  hody  is  essential  to  baptism,  and  they  only  dip  depart 
of  it,  Baptists  do  not  baptize  validly,  themselves  being 
judges,  inasmuch  as  a  part  is  not  equal  to  the  whole. 

"  On  Monday  evening  we  shall  examine  the  classical  argu- 
ment, and  we  shall  then  see  how  far  immersion  can  be  sus- 
tained by  an  appeal  to  the  Greeks.  Although  it  is  not 
material  whether  hapto  and  haptidzo  are  words  of  mode  or 
not  in  Greek  literature,  yet,  lest  we  should  seem  to  omit  an 
argument  considered  weighty  by  our  opponents,  I  will  con- 
sider it.  I  hope  to  show,  too,  that  an  appeal  to  Csesar  will 
not  issue  in  a  decision  to  ostracize  the  largest  part  of  the 
Christian  world,  and  to  exclude  them  from  the  Church  of 
God." 

The  audience  was  then  dismissed. 


120  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 


CHAPTER    X. 

THE     DAY     OF     TRIAL. 

Mr.  Ellis  liad  met  with  so  little  success  iu  his  first  attempt 
to  break  the  force  of  Mr.  Mason's  argument,  that  he  .could 
not  summon  courage  enough  to  attend  on  Friday  evening. 
It  was  evidently  with  reluctance  that  he  permitted  Mary  to 
go.  He  remained  at  home,  and  consulted  his  wife  as  to  the 
course  he  should  pursue. 

''It  is  a  matter  of  no  consequence  how  we  got  into  this 
affair/'  said  he  to  Mrs.  Ellis ;  ''  the  question  now  is,  how  shall 
we  get  out  of  it  ?  Some  of  the  brethren  blame  me  for  the 
whole,  and  say  that  my  sermon  last  Sabbath  has  brought 
the  trouble  upon  us.  To-day,  Mr.  Lewis  gave  us  notice 
that  we  might  expel  him  if  we  liked,  but  that  he  was  going 
back  to  the  Presbyterians.  If  Brother  Battle  comes,  he  will 
be  able  to  hold  his  hand  with  Mason,  but  I  am  afraid  he 
will  not  be  able  to  set  some  things  right.  Unfortunately, 
some  hot-headed,  misguided  Baptists  have  given  this  circuit- 
rider  a  chance  to  use  some  admissions  against  us,  and  I  see 
no  way  to  take  them  out  of  his  hands." 

''But  perhaps,  husband,"  suggested  Mrs.  Ellis,  "you  can 
show  that  the  apparent  difference  between  these  Baptist 
writers  originates  in  the  fact  that  they  have  different  ways 
of  proving-  the  same  thing." 

"So  I  can,"  replied  Mr.  Ellis,  "but  that  will  do  me  no 
good,  for  the  Pedobaptists  will  show  that  their  admissions  in 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  121 

our  favor  originate  in  the  same  way.     I  can  see  but  one  way 
to  avoid  tlie  consequences  of  this  debate. '^ 

^^And  what  is  that  V  asked  Mrs.  Ellis. 

'^  Why,  if  we  can  control  Theophilus,  and  after  all  get 
him  back  to  the  Baptist  Church,  it  will  do  us  more  good 
than  any  thing  else,  and  will  show  at  once  that  Mason's  logic 
is  not  worth  a  fig." 

^'  But  how  will  you  accomplish  that,  Mr.  Ellis  ?'' 

"  My  chief  hope  is  in  Mary's  influence  over  him,"  replied 
Mr.  Ellis.  ^^  If  she  will  let  him  understand  that  he  must 
come  back  to  our  Church,  before  she  consents  to  marry  him, 
I  think  the  business  will  be  fixed." 

"  I  am  afraid  that  Mary  will  not  do  that,  Mr.  Ellis.  She 
is  so  much  attached  to  Theophilus  that  I  doubt  whether  she 
can  be  persuaded  to  make  such  conditions." 

"Don't  talk  Sihovit persuasion,"  said  Mr.  Ellis;  "I  should 
like  to  know  if  we  have  not  the  right  to  dictate  to  her,  and, 
if  necessary,  to  compel  her  to  obey  us  ?" 

"I  am  fearful  that  will  never  do,"  replied  Mrs.  Ellis. 
"  You  know  that  opposition  rather  confirms  than  checks  a 
young  girl's  love,  and  if  we  were  to  try  to  force  measures 
upon  Mary,  I  firmly  believe  we  should  fail." 

"  Do  you  think  that  she  has  no  eye  to  young  Walton's 
money  f"  asked  Mr.  Ellis,  after  a  few  moments  of  silent 
thought. 

"  No,  husband,  I  believe  her  love  is  pure  as  love  can  be," 
answered  Mrs.  Ellis. 

"But  suppose  Theophilus  should  be  cut  ofi"  without  a 
dollar — what  then  ?" 

"Who  talks  of  doing  that,  Mr.  Ellis?" 

"Never- do  you  mind.  What  think  you  :  would  Mary  be 
willing  to  marry  him  without  a  cent  in  the  world  ?" 

"Yes,  I  firmly  believe  she  would." 

"  Against  our  wishes  ?" 
6 


122  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

"  Yes,  and  against  the  wislies  of  tlie  whole  world,  at  that. 
I  don't  think  there  is  any  chance  to  bring  her  over  to  such 
measures  as  those. '^ 

"  Well,  we  can  but  try.  I  shall  give  her  orders  to-night 
when  she  comes  home,  and  I  want  you  to  talk  with  her,  and 
see  if  you  cannot  influence  her  to  do  right  about  it.  I  will 
use  severity,  and  you  may  try  kindness;  perhaps  between 
the  two  we  can  bring  her  to  terms.  And  if  she  will  try, 
there  is  no  doubt  of  her  success  with  Theophilus.'' 

"  Well,  husband,  I  will  do  any  thing  I  can  to  assist  you. 
But  did  I  understand  you  to  say  that  Brother  Walton 
intended  to  disinherit  Theophilus,  if  he  persisted  in  staying 
among  the  Methodists  ?'' 

"  Did  I  say  that  ?"  inquired  Mr.  Ellis. 

^^You  didn't  sa?/  it,  but  you  hinted  it  very  strongly/' 
replied  his  wife. 

^'  Well,  suppose  he  should  do  so :  would  you  blame 
him  V 

"  Certainly  I  would ;  and  with  very  good  reason  too  ;  and 
the  world  would  blame  him  for  such  an  act '' 

Just  at  that  moment  the  merry  laugh  of  Mary  was  heard 
as  she  closed  the  gate,  and  bade  Theophilus  good-night. 

^'  Well,  no  matter,  wife,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  rising  from  his 
seat.  ^' We'll  talk  that  over  another  time.  I  must  go  and 
hear  what  the  circuit-rider  has  been  doing  to-night." 

"  What  news  to-night,  Mary  ?"  asked  Mr.  Ellis,  as  they 
sat  down  in  the  parlor. 

"  Worse  than  ever,  father.  Mr.  Mason  has  proved  that 
we  are  not  baptized  according  to  our  own  doctrine." 

^'  Indeed !  well,  that  was  marvellous  logic,  which  proved 
so  strange  a  thing  as  that.     How  did  he  make  it  appear?" 

^^Why,  father,  he  says  we  contend  for  dipping,  which 
you  know  is  true." 

^^  So  we  do,  what  then  ?" 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  123 

''And  he  says  a  tiling,  to  be  dipped,  must  be  dipped  all 
over — whicli  I  have  heard  you  affirm.'' 

"  Very  well ;  what  next  ?" 

"  He  says  our  preachers  only  dip  the  head  and  shoulders 
of  their  subjects,  and  therefore,  according  to  our  teaching, 
do  not  baptize  them." 

"A  pretty  argument,  truly  !  Fie,  fie,  daughter  !  he  did 
not  say  that,  did  he  1" 

"  Yes,  sir,  he  did,  and  I  must  confess  that  his  argument 
looked  very  plausible  to  me.  He  proved  that  the  dipping, 
which  we  consider  essential,  is  not  practiced  by  us;  but  that 
it  ivas  practiced  under  King  James  when  the  Bible  was 
translated," 

^'  Oho  !  he  admitted  that,  did  he  V 

"Yes,  father;  but  so  far  from  the  admission  doing  us 
good,  I  think  it  made  against  us." 

"  How  so,  Mary  ?" 

"  Because  he  showed  that  infants  were  truly  and  properly 
dljyped  in  the  font,  whilst  we  are  not  properly  dipped  in  the 
pool,  and  cannot  be  easily." 

"Well,  what  of  that?  we  are  immersed;  that  is  enough." 

"But  then,  father,  he  showed  also  that  immerse  is  a 
Latin  word,  and  that  it  originally  meant  to  sink,  to  cover  up 
in  the  water ;  and  he  said  that  the  Latins  had  another  word 
to  signify  coming  up  or  out  of  the  water — I  think  he  said 
it  was  the  verb  emergoT 

"And  what  does  he  prove  from  that,  Mary?" 

"  That  it  is  wrong  to  call  an  act  which  is  plainly  an 
immersion  and  an  emersion  combined,  by  one  word, 
expressing  only  half  of  the  act,  which  we  do  when  we  call 
dipping  immersion." 

"  Well,  .well,  what  trifling  with  words  !  How  these  Pedo- 
baptist  rantizers  will  ridicule  the  ordinance  of  Christ !" 

"I  do  not  think  he  ridiculed  it,  father;  he  was  only  fol- 


124  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

lowing  our  own  authors,  Dr.  Carson,  Dr.  Fuller,  and  others. 
You  know  we  rely  on  these  writers  when  they  are  on  our 
side;  why  should  we  not  listen  to  them  when  they  turn 
against  us  ?  Besides,  father,  you  know  that  we  use  their 
books  in  the  same  way,  and  we  cannot  expect  any  thing  else 
than  that  they  will  retaliate." 

"  Mary/'  said  Mr.  Ellis — and  his  brow  was  darkened  by  a 
frown,  which  brought  a  shudder  over  her  delicate  frame — 
^'  your  intimacy  with  that  graceless  fellow,  Theophilus,  has 
made  you  lend  an  ear  to  this  pestilent  teacher  of  heresy. 
Hark  you !  as  you  love  me,  and  value  your  own  peace,  do 
you  forbid  liim  to  see  you  any  more." 

'^  0,  father  !  do  not  say  that !"  exclaimed  Mary.  ^'  What 
has  he  done  ?     Do,  father,  recall  that  cruel  sentence." 

'^  Mary,  I  am  not  to  be  trifled  with/'  replied  Mr.  Ellis, 
sternly;  '^  I  have  given  you  your  orders  :  I  must  be  obeyed." 
Mr.  Ellis  was  in  the  act  of  retiring,  but  Mary  seized  his 
hand  and  detained  him. 

^'Father,  stop,  stay  one  moment.  Theophilus  is  an 
honorable  man.  We  are  engaged.  You  have  given  your 
consent — it  is  known.  If  you  now  forbid  our  marriage,  you 
must  expect " 

The  young  girl's  utterance  was  checked  by  her  father's 
departure.  He  thrust  her  away  from  him,  and  retired  to 
his  room.  She  sank  down  upon  the  sofa,  and  indulged  in 
the  sad  relief  of  tears.  For  some  time  her  mind  was  tossed 
hither  and  thither  by  conflicting  thoughts.  Disobedience  to 
her  parents  had  never  been  a  sin  of  hers;  but  now  obe- 
dience was  a  sin  against  herself.  Never  before  had  she  met 
the  angry  frown  of  a  parent;  and  although  she  had  reason  to 
fear  that  all  was  not  right,  from  the  significant  look  he  gave 
her  in  the  afternoon,  as  she  was  returning  with  Theophilus 
from  Mr.  Riley'^,  she  did  not  anticipate  such  treatment  as 
this  at  her  father's  hands.     It  was  true,  Theophilus  had 


THE     MAJESTY    OE     TRUTH.  125 

forewarned  lier  of  an  attempt  to  thwart  lier  wislies,  but  slie 
attributed  the  warning  to  needless  anxiety.  But  now  the 
storm  had  burst  upon  her  in  all  its  fury.  What  had  she 
done  to  deserve  such  treatment?  If  her  parents  had 
regarded  Theophilus  as  an  unworthy  suitor,  why  had  they 
encouraged  him  ?  Why  had  they  uniformly  spoken  of  him 
in  the  strongest  terms  of  approbation  ?  Why  had  they 
already  given  their  consent  to  the  marriage  ?  When  her 
affection  was  in  the  bud,  a  single  word  from  father  or  mother 
would  have  destroyed  it  for  ever.  But  no,  they  had  coun- 
tenanced his  addresses,  and  her  love  had  become  the  source 
of  joy  and  comfort  to  her  heart.  To  oppose  it  now  would 
be  to  blight  her  prospect  of  earthly  happiness. 

She  lifted  her  heart  to  the  throne  of  the  great  God,  and 
endeavored  to  learn  his  will,  and  she  felt  that  there  was  no 
frown  there — her  conscience  felt  no  check  :  she  had  done  no 
wrong,  and  yet  must  suffer.  She  must  submit  to  have  ber 
love  become  an  article  of  merchandise;  for  surely  she 
thought  her  father  had  seen  or  hoped  to  see  some  more 
eligible  match — one  that  promised  more  of  honor  or  wealth. 
She  could  not  believe  that  the  mere  fact  of  joining  the 
Methodist  Church  could,  of  itself,  excite  such  uncompro- 
mising opposition  from  her  father.  And  perhaps  Theo- 
philus had  done  something  else ;  perhaps  he  had — but  no, 
she  could  believe  no  evil  of  her  heart's  beloved. 

^'  0,  is  it  not  cruel  V  she  exclaimed,  ^^  that  I  should  be 
driven  to  this  sad  alternative  :  to  disobey  my  own  father,  or 
sacrifice  my  own  peace?'' 

^'  No,  no,  my  child,  you  shall  do  neither,''  said  a  soft,  low 
voice  by  her  side. 

^'  Mother,  is  it  you?"  asked  Mary.  ^^  0,  mother !  I  am  in 
trouble.     Are  you,  too,  against  me,  mother  V 

"  I  know  all,  Mary.  I  have  heard  your  conversation  with 
your  father.     Dry  your  tears,  my  child ;  there  is  still  hope ; 


126  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

all  may  yet  be  well.  Promise  me  that  you  will  do  as  I 
direct,  and  you  will  yet  be  happy.'' 

"  0  mother,  I  will  do  any  thing  that  is  proper,  to  soften 
my  father,  and  cause  him  to  relent.     But  what  can  I  do  ?" 

"  It  is  an  easy  thing  I  ask  of  you,  Mary.  I  know  that 
Theophilus  loves  you  ardently.  Your  influence  over  him  is 
unbounded.      You  can  reclaim  him,  and  all  will  be  well." 

'^Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  I  must  use  my  in- 
fluence with  him  to  bring  him  to  our  Church  ?" 

''  Yes,  my  child  ;  then  you  will  secure  your  father's  appro- 
bation, and  at  the  same  time  confer  upon  him  a  great  favor." 

"  I  do  not  quite  understand  you,  mother.  Confer  a  great 
favor  on  whom  ?" 

''  On  your  father,  my  child.  But  for  your  own  sake, 
Mary,  you  ought  not  to  hesitate  a  moment." 

"  But,  mother,  how  can  I  do  it?" 

^'  Make  it  the  condition  of  your  marriage." 

''What !  refuse  to  have  him  unless  he  will  become  a  Bap- 
tist?" 

''  Yes,  that  will  settle  the  difficulty." 

''  But,  mother,  I  have  already  told  him  I  cannot  do  that !" 

''  Have  you  committed  yourself  already,  Mary  ?" 

''  Why,  mother,  you  know  that  we  are  now  engaged,  and 
there  is  no  such  condition  in  the  engagement." 

''That  does  not  matter,  Mary.  You  can  tell  him  that 
when  you  engaged  yourself  to  him,  you  did  not  expect  him 
to  change  his  religious  opinions.  Tell  him  that  your  do- 
mestic happiness  will  be  marred  by  his  belonging  to  one 
Church  and  you  to  another.  He  will  hear  you — he  will 
yield  to  you,  depend  upon  it." 

"  But  I  have  told  him  already,  mother,  that  his  views  of 
religious  duty  could  not  possibly  make  any  change  in  my  af- 
fection for  him." 

"And  why  did  you  do  that,  Mary?" 


THE     MAJESTY     OT    TRUTH.  127 

"  I  am  a  woman,  mother  :  liow  could  I  do  otherwise  ?  I 
cannot  cease  to  love  liim  because  he  has  ceased  to  be  a  Bap- 
tist. I  can  no  more  control  my  affections  at  pleasure,  than 
he  can  believe  every  thing  required  of  him/' 

"  But,  Mary,  you  can  tell  him  that  you  had  expressed 
yourself  hastily :  that,  upon  a  more  deliberate  examination 
of  the  subject,  you  are  firmly  convinced  that  you  can  only  be 
happy  in  the  same  Church/' 

^'  But  mother,  I  have  no  such  conviction  :  must  I  tell  him 
an  untruth  ?'' 

^'-  Mary !  Mary !  remember  what  a  debt  of  gratitude  you 
owe  to  your  father :  remember  how  he  has  cared  for  you 
from  infancy '' 

^'  I  know  it,  I  know  it  all,  mother  :  spare  me  the  recital 
of  the  debt,  lest  this  poor  heart  of  mine  be  tempted  to  do 
Theophilus  a  wrong  !" 

^^  My  child,  it  is  important  to  your  father's  interests  as 
well  as  your  own,  for  Theophilus  to  return  to  us.  Your 
father's  position  requires  it,  your  happiness  requires  it. 
Mary,  Mary,  listen  to  the  voice  of  reason,  and  obey." 

^^Any  thing  else,  mother,  I  can  do.  I  am  willing  to  lay 
the  whole  subject  before  him,  but  I  cannot  threaten  to  dis- 
card him,  if  he  does  not  grant  my  request.  I  never  can  do 
that." 

'^  Do  not  be  too  hasty  in  your  conclusion,  Mary :  promise 
me  to  try  it.  You  need  not  be  very  positive  at  first.  Ex- 
press yourself  gently :  show  him  how  little  he  must  yield  to 
satisfy  you.  Convince  him  that  his  sacrifice  will  be  small, 
whilst  yours  must  be  immense.  Appeal  to  his  magnanimity  : 
he  will  yield  to  your  wishes,  and  all  injuries  will  be  atoned 
for.  Bemember,  too,  that  you  will  be  laboring  to  promote 
the  purity  of  Christ's  Church,  and  for  the  glory  of  God !" 

Mary  made  no  reply,  but  the  words,   ^^  for  the  glory  of 


128  TIIEOPHILUS 

God/'  rang  in  her  ears.  She  could  not  believe  that  God's 
service  required  such  a  sacrifice  at  her  hands. 

Mrs.  Ellis  followed  her  daughter  to  her  room,  and  ceased 
not  her  importunities  until  she  had  extorted  a  half-audible 
promise  of  compliance.  Poor  Mary !  in  the  dark,  still 
watches  of  that  night,  her  eyes  were  sleepless.  In  vain  she 
strove  to  reconcile  her  past  professions  to  Theophilus  with 
the  part  she  was  now  forced  to  perform.  Would  he  yield  to 
her?  Would  he  consent  to  join  her  Church  rather  than 
forfeit  her  love  ?  No,  her  heart  answered  for  the  absent  one  : 
he  ought  not,  and  therefore  he  icould  not  do  so.  She  could 
not  feel  it  in  her  heart  to  respect  him  if  he  did  violate  his 
conscience.  But  he  would  not.  Yet  she  had  promised  her 
mother  to  make  the  experiment,  and  just  before  the  early 
dawn  she  committed  her  cause  into  the  hands  of  her  Hea- 
venly Father,  and  snatched  a  few  uneasy  moments  of  slumber. 

She  rose  from  her  troubled  couch,  and  by  the  pale  morn- 
ing light  addressed  a  note  to  Theophilus.  She  requested 
him  to  visit  her  that  morning,  as  she  had  a  subject  of  im- 
portance to  communicate.  The  note  was  dispatched,  and 
Mary  strove  to  be  cheerful  as  usual. 

Mr.  Ellis  was  apprised  of  his  daughter's  compliance,  and 
was  therefore  kind  and  afi"able,  as  he  generally  was,  at  the 
breakfast  -  table.  But  notwithstanding  all  this,  her  own 
efforts  to  be  cheerful,  and  the  kindness  of  her  parents,  there 
was  a  dark  cloud  over  IMary's  heart.  She  had  learned  to 
distrust  her  parents,  and  to  regard  their  conduct  as  illiberal 
and  unjust.  Her  faith  in  the  sincerity  of  their  love  was 
shaken.  She  felt  that  they  were  willing  to  sacrifice  her  hap- 
piness in  order  to  gain  some  worldly  end.  A  fervent  prayer 
to  the.  Unchanging  One  went  up  from  her  closet  that  morn- 
ing, and  the  Spirit  of  grace  failed  not  to  strengthen  her 
for  the  approaching  trial. 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  129 


CHAPTER    XI. 

NEW    TROUBLES    IN     THE     CABINET. 

•  Mr.  Ellis  was  summoned  from  breakfast  to  the  study. 
Thither  we  shall  follow  him^  and  find  fresh  sources  of  trouble 
and  perplexity. 

"  You  were  not  out  last  night.  Brother  Ellis/'  said  Mr. 
Barbour,  who  stood  waiting  at  the  door  of  the  study. 

"  No,  not  I,''  said  Mr.  Ellis ;  "  I  have  no  taste  for  such  a 
miserable  course  of  investigation,  falsely  so  called.  The  truth 
of  God  was  never  yet  ascertained  by  such  a  partial,  unright- 
eous garbling  as  that  Methodist  circuit-rider  practices.  I 
shall  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  him.'' 

^'  But  look  here,  Brother  Ellis ;  is  he  not  using  our  authors 
precisely  as  we  have  used  his  ?  What  unfairness  is  there  in 
that  V 

^^  But  doesn't  the  man  know  that  these  men  he  is  bring- 
ing against  us  are  Baptists:  that  they  believed  in  and 
practiced  immersion  ?" 

^'Yery  true,"  replied  Mr.  Barbour;  ^^and  do  not  we 
know  that  the  Pedobaptists  whom  we  quote  to  prove  our 
point,  believed  in  and  practiced  affusion  ?" 

^^  Suppose  they  did :  the  truth  was  so  apparent  to  their 
minds  as  to  the  meaning  of  the  word,  and  the  ancient  cus- 
tom of  the  Church,  that  they  were  compelled  to  make  ad- 
missions in  our  favor.  These  admissions  we  quote  because 
they  establish  our  doctrine  by  the  testimony  of  our  enemies. 
Further  than  that,  we  have  no  use  for  them." 
6* 


130  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^Precisely  so,  Brother  Ellis;  and  Mr.  Mason  simply  uses 
our  writers  in  tlie  same  way.  He  grants  that  they  were  im- 
mersionists,  but  shows  that,  by  taking  different  methods  to 
establish  it,  our  writers,  when  brought  into  collision,  mutu- 
ally destroy  each  other;  and  therefore  if,  in  your  hands,  liis 
authors  are  proof  against  Tiiin^  in  liU  hands  your  authors  are 
proof  against  you.  There  the  matter  ends.  He  does  not 
rest  upon  such  testimony  for  valid  proof;  but  it  seems  to  me 
has  simply  pursued  this  course  to  offset  our  ad  captandum 
argum.ents.  I  see  nothing  wrong  in  his  course,  so  far  as  this 
is  concerned.  We  are  bound  to  admit  that  he  has  the  same 
right  to  pursue  any  given  method  that  we  have.'' 

'^And  are  you  beginning  to  doubt,  too,  Brother  Barbour  V 

"  To  doubt  what,  Brother  Ellis  ?" 

^^  The  validity  of  your  baptism." 

"Not  at  all.  But  I  do  doubt  whether  many  of  our 
preachers  take  the  proper  means  to  prove  it.  I  have  exam- 
ined my  lexicon,  and  those  places  which  have  occurred  in 
my  reading  in  Greek  books,  and  I  am  firmly  persuaded  that 
haptidzo  means  to  immerse,  primarily ;  but  I  question  very 
much  if  it  has  not  a  secondary  signification,  to  washy  without 
indicating  the  mode.  Still  I  believe  immersion  to  be  the 
proper  mode :  I  have  no  doubt  of  that.  But  I  am  not  so 
clear  in  my  mind  that  we  are  authorized  to  unchurch  the 
whole  Christian  world  outside  of  our  denomination,  upon 
such  a  slender  basis.  "Whether  or  not  the  word  was  used  by 
our  Saviour  in  the  primary  or  secondary  sense,  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  say.  At  all  events,  it  seems  illiberal  as  well  as 
illogical  to  assert  our  opinions  in  a  dogmatic  form,  and  then 
to  bring  scraps  from  the  writings  of  our  opponents  to  estab- 
lish it.  We  must  know  that  they  will  turn  our  own  argu- 
ments against  us,  and  thus  make  our  position,  which  as  a 
mere  opinion  may  be  strong,  appear  positively  absurd  when 
it  assumes  to  be  a  demonstration." 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  131 

"I  am  surprised  at  jou,  Brother  Barbour;  our  enemies 
want  no  greater  concessions  than  those  which  you  have  just 
made." 

"I  cannot  help  it,  Brother  ElliS;  I  must  speak  the  truth. 
I  seek  to  know  the  truth,  and  if  I  become  convinced  that  I 
have  acted  hastily  in  any  case,  without  a  due  knowledge  of 
the  facts,  I  would  be  unworthy  the  name  of  a  candid  man 
if  I  did  not  retrace  my  steps  and  acknowledge  my  error. 
AVe,  as  a  Church,  exclude  Pedobaptists  from  communion  at 
the  Lord's  table.  Why  ?  Because  we  say  they  are  not 
haptized — not  because  we  find  fault  with  them  on  the  score 
of  their  piety :  we  acknowledge  them  to  be  true  Christians. 
Now,  how  do  we  knoiv  that  they  are  not  haptized  f  Because 
we  think  the  word  means  only  to  immerse  ?  That  is  a 
slender  basis.  We  may  be  wrong ;  and  if  so,  the  displeasure 
of  God  must  be  due  us  for  excluding  from  our  fellowship 
those  whom  Jesus  has  received.  Are  we  better  than  Christ  ? 
Can  we  reject,  innocently,  those  whom  he  receives — whom  we 
acknowledge  him  to  have  received  ?  How  can  we  reconcile 
this  inconsistency  ?  If  we  could  prove  to  a  demonstration 
that  immersion  only  is  baptism,  then  we  are  secure.  But 
see  the  predicament  into  which  we  fall.  If  we  demonstrate 
our  doctrine,  why  do  not  all  candid,  pious  men  see  it,  and 
embrace  it?  That  they  do  not  is  evident.  The  inference 
is,  then,  compelled  to  be  one  of  three  things :  either  our 
Pedobaptist  friends  are  too  dishonest  to  admit  our  position, 
which  they  see  to  be  true ;  or  they  have  not  sense  enough 
to  see  a  demonstration ;  or  else  we  do  not  demonstrate  it. 
Now,  which  of  these  can  we  safely  take  ?  Shall  we  say  that 
they  are  too  dishonest  to  admit  the  truth  ?  Then  our  ac- 
knowledgment that  they  are  as  good  Christians  as  ourselves 
refutes  us  at  once.  Shall  we  say  that  they  have  not  sense 
enough  to  see  it  ?  Then  we  go  contrary  to  our  own  judg- 
ment, for  we  know  that  they  have,  to  say  the  least,  as  much 


133  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

talent  as  we.  Op  shall  we  not  ratlier  say,  we  have  not 
demonstrated  the  truth  of  our  position  ?  And  if  we  have 
not,  the  doctrine  of  immersion  is  a  mere  opinion,  which, 
however  correct  we  may  think  it,  does  not  warrant  us  in 
excluding  people  from  the  Church  of  Christ,  on  the  strength 
of  it/' 

^^  I  shall  give  you  up  for  lost,  Mr.  Barbour.  The  Pedo- 
baptists  need  not  want  a  better  advocate  than  you  are.  I 
cannot  argue  with  my  own  people  on  this  subject.'^ 

^'  Say,  rather.  Brother  Ellis,  that  you  cannot  sustain  your 
position  on  untenable  ground.  If  your  position  were  defens- 
ible, you  could  argue  with  me,  and  that  you  know  full  well. 
But  we  are  wrong,  my  dear  brother ;  we  are  in  a  grievous 
error,  and  ought  to  get  out  of  it.'' 

"  Ought  to  get  out  of  what  V  asked  Mr.  Fleming,  who 
just  at  that  moment  entered. 

''  Why,  out  of  the  practice  of  close  communion,"  replied 
Mr.  Barbour.  ^^  I  have  been  saying  that  it  is  the  height  of 
inconsistency  to  say  that  people  who  are  good  Christians — 
whom  Christ  has  received  and  blessed — ought  to  be  expelled 
from  the  Lord's  table,  because  they  have  not  done  that 
which  we  cannot  prove  to  be  their  duty.  At  least  we  can 
only  prove  we  think  it  their  duty,  but  cannot  demonstrate 
that  it  is." 

''  Precisely  my  doctrine.  Brother  Barbour,"  said  Mr. 
Fleming.  '^  I  have  been  trying  for  many  years  to  moderate 
the  views  of  some  of  our  brethren,  but  they  meet  me  with  such 
epithets  as  ^Arminian/  '  half-Methodist,'  ^  dough-face,'  and 
the  like,  without  attempting  to  answer  my  arguments.  I 
think  we  have  got,  for  once,  an  evidence  that  moderation  is 
the  greatest  wisdom.  If  we  had  gone  on,  content  to  take 
our  share  of  the  revival,  all  would  have  been  well.  But  in 
our  sorrow  at  the  loss  of  a  little  Baptist  influence,  we  are 
now  running  the   hazard  of   losing  still    more,   even    some 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  133 

of  our  old  members.  Sister  Williams,  who  lias  a  son  in  the 
Methodist  Church,  who  is  a  local  preacher,  has  been  up 
several  times  before  this  Church  for  communing  with  the 
Methodists.  I  am  told  that  this  son  of  hers  is  now  on  a 
visit  here,  and  that  he  will  be  likely  to  preach  to-morrow, 
and  that  they  will  have  the  communion  service.  If  so,  the 
old  lady  avows  her  intention  of  communing  with  them.  If 
she  does,  our  ^  old  landmark'  men  will  arraign  and  expel  her. 
For  one,  I  say  boldly,  that  we  have  no  right  to  reject  any 
servant  of  the  Lord  from  his  table,  and  wherever  it  is 
spread,  all  the  Lord's  children  are  entitled  to  partake  of  the 
symbols  of  our  common  Saviour's  suiFering  and  death." 

"  Perhaps  you  will  go  and  commune  with  the  Methodists, 
too.  Brother  Fleming,  as  you  say  there  is  no  harm  in  it," 
said  Mr.  Ellis. 

"  No,  Brother  Ellis,  I  will  be  governed  by  the  decision  of  the 
majority.  '  If  meat  cause  my  brother  to  offend,  then  will  I 
eat  no  more  meat  while  the  world  standeth.'  But  mind  you, 
I  don't  think  there  is  a  particle  of  harm  in  the  meat  itself!" 

^'  We  are  always  thankful  for  small  favors,"  replied  Mr. 
Ellis,  ^^and  if  we  cannot  convince  you  that  strict  commu- 
nion is  right  in  theory,  we  are  glad  that  you  consent  to 
practice  it.     '  Half  a  loaf  is  better  than  no  bread.'  " 

^^  I  refuse  to  commune  with  others.  Brother  Ellis,"  con- 
tinued Mr.  Fleming,  "only  because  the  Church  condemns 
it.  I  think  the  Church  is  wrong,  and  I  would  be  glad  to 
see  her  get  right  on  the  subject." 

"  Then  you  assist  the  Church  in  committing  a  wrong  upon 
the  Christian  world,"  rejoined  Mr.  Barbour.  "I  am  not 
prepared  to  take  that  position.  I  must  review  the  ground 
which  we  occupy  on  that  doctrine,  and  if  I  am  not  better 
persuaded  than  I  now  am  of  our  scriptural  correctness,  I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  I  will  follow  the  example  of 
Sister  Williams." 


134  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

^^  Spare  me,  brethren,  spare  me  V  groaned  Mr.  Ellis,  "  I 
am  in  too  mucli  trouble  to  hear  you  talk  thus.  Here  I  am, 
involved  in  controversy,  unable  to  meet  my  antagonists  suc- 
cessfully. Brother  Lewis  has  notified  us  of  his  intention  to 
return  to  the  Presbyterians ;  Brother  Fleming  falls  out  with 
strict  communion ;  Sister  Williams  is  going  to  violate  the 
long-established  rule  of  the  Church;  and  Brother  Barbour 
declares  he  is  getting  ready  to  do  the  same  !  Take  pity  on 
me,  brethren,  and  let  me  alone  !  It  is  enough  to  contend 
with  enemies  from  without — foes  within  are  too  hard  for 
mer 

Mr.  Barbour  and  Mr.  Fleming  understood  this  remark,  as 
it  was  undoubtedly  designed,  to  be  an  invitation  to  retire. 
So  without  adding  more  they  bade  the  pastor  adieu. 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  135 


CHAPTER    XII. 

THE     INTERVIEW    AND     ITS     RESULT. 

Theophilus  was  somewhat  surprised  when  he  received 
Mary's  note.  It  was  evidently  written  hurriedly,  and 
seemed  to  indicate  a  disturbed  mind.  He  observed,  more- 
over, at  the  breakfast-table  that  morning,  that  trouble  was 
brewing  for  him  at  home.  Although  there  was  nothing  said 
which  could  give  him  a  distinct  idea  of  the  nature  of  the 
opposition  he  was  going  to  encounter,  yet  there  were  many 
innuendoes  and  insinuations,  coupled  with  manifest  coldness 
towards  himself,  which  required  no  special  acumen  to  inter- 
pret unfavorably.  He  had  once  been  the  pride  and  joy 
of  the  family,  but  now  his  opinions  were  treated  with  con- 
tempt, and  he  seemed  suddenly  to  become  a  stranger  in  the 
home  of  his  youth.  But  he  had  embarked  on  an  inviting 
sea,  and  he  determined,  whatever  consequences  might  attend 
it,  to  pursue  his  voyage. 

Mary's  note,  however,  caused  him  to  waver  for  a  moment. 
Perhaps  she  had  been  persuaded  to  turn  against  him ;  if  so, 
he  was  to  be  left  alone  to  the  friendship  of  his  Grod,  and  a 
clear  conscience.  Could  he  be  firm,  and  resist  her  entreat- 
ies ?  Could  he  boldly  dare  to  do  what  his  heart  approved, 
and  Grod  had  not  condemned  ?  He  knew  not.  The  hour 
of  trial  was  yet  to  come — how  he  should  abide  it  he  knew 
not. 

He  found  Mary  awaiting  his  arrival.     She  endeavored  to 


136  TIIEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

appear  cheerful  as  usual,  but  tliere  was  a  cloud  upon  her 
brow,  an  expression  of  anxiety  wliicli  no  eifort  of  hers  could 
remove.  She  was  in  doubt  how  to  approach  the  unwelcome 
theme — how  to  force  her  lips  to  utter  words  which  came 
not  from  the  pure  fountain  of  her  heart.  She  talked  of 
many  things,  the  ordinary  staple  of  conversation,  and 
several  times  was  on  the  eve  of  broaching  the  subject,  but 
she  timidly  shrank  from  the  execution  of  her  promise. 

Theophilus  knew  Mary  too  well  to  be  in  doubt  as  to  the 
cause  of  her  embarrassment.  He  saw  that  she  was  but  half 
won  to  the  purpose,  and  that  she  would  not  be  offended  by 
his  refusal  to  comply.     At  last  he  said  : 

'■'■  Mary,  I  perceive  that  you  have  something  of  import- 
ance to  tell  me,  I  suspect  the  nature  of  it.  You  have 
been  persuaded  by  your  father  to  turn  against  me.'^ 

'^0,  Theophilus  !  he  has  commanded  me  to  see  you  no 
more !"  exclaimed  she. 

^^  Indeed  !"  answered  Theophilus;  ^^  and  you  are  going  to 
comply?" 

''  What  shall  I  say,  The.  ?  I  cannot  comply,  and  yet  I 
dctre  not  refuse.     What  shall  I  do  V 

^^  Be  calm,  my  dear :   what  reason  does  he  give  for  this 


course 


V 


"  None,  The. ;  he  only  peremptorily  bade  me  to  discard 
you  ;  but  mother " 

^'  Well,  and  what  did  your  mother  say  ?" 

^-  She  told  me  all.  You  must  come  back,  The. ;  my 
dearest  friend,  you  must  come  back,  and  every  thing  will  be 
riii'ht  ao;ain  V 

^^Aha !"  exclaimed  Theophilus.  "I  expected  it,  Mary,  I 
warned  you  of  it  but  a  few  days  since.  Now,  my  love,  tell 
me  honestly,  are  you  going  to  insist  upon  my  joining  the 
Baptist  Church  V 

'^Yes,  The.,  by  all  means  in  the  world;   it  will  be  con- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  137 

ferring  the  greatest  favor  imaginable  upon  fatlicr,  and  it  will 
smooth  our  pathway  for  the  future.  See  what  you  can  do, 
and  how  easily  you  can  do  it — so  little  sacrifice,  so  little 
self-denial,  and  what  a  world  of  happiness  it  will  purchase 
for  us.  0,  my  dear  Theophilus  !  think  of  it;  yield  to  me 
this  once,  and  I  am  yours.  Peace  at  home — your  home  and 
mine — good  accomplished,  it  may  be,  for  Grod  and  his 
Church.     How  can  you  refuse  V 

^'  Mary,  be  calm ;  you  are  becoming  excited.  I  would  do 
nothing  to  displease  you.  In  a  moment  of  frenzy,  when 
my  affection  for  you  is  dominant  over  my  reason,  I  may  con- 
sent to  forfeit  my  religious  peace,  and  confirm  myself  in 
mistry  for  life.  Mary,  do  you  wish  to  see  me  an  unhappy 
man  ?  do  you  wish  to  make  me  so  V^ 

^^  No,  no,  my  love,"  she  replied,  ^^  not  for  the  world." 

'^Well,  then,  if  I  assure  you  that  to  do  as  you  require 
will  cause  me  to  sin  against  my  conscience,  will  you  still 
insist  V 

^^  No,  I  cannot  do  that,  Theophilus." 

^'AYell,  my  dear,  suppose  I  were  to  yield  this  point  to 
you — suppose  I  should  agree  to  join  the  Baptist  Church — 
do  you  suppose  I  could  face  the  throne  of  my  Father  in 
heaven,  and  feel  guiltless,  when  I  had  trampled  his  word 
under  foot;  when  I  had  professed  doctrines  I  did  not 
believe;  when  I  had  wilfully  consented  to' sin  against  his 
people,  and  to  thrust  them  out  of  his  kingdom  ?  No,  no, 
Mary,  I  cannot  do  it." 

''  But  will  you  be  committing  this  great  sin  by  yielding  to 
me  ?" 

^^  Yes,  Mary.  I  feel  that  I  could  never  look  upon  the 
light  of  day  again  without  meeting  the  condemnation  of 
God.  I  should  feel  that  nature  condemned  me  :  every  flower 
that  blooms  upon  the  highway,  or  wastes  its  odors  in  the 
arid  desert ;  every  star  that  twinkles  in  the  clear,  blue  sky ; 


138  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

every  graia  of  sand  and  drop  of  water,  are  unconscious, 
unintelligent  doers  of  God's  will ;  but  I,  blessed  above  his 
humbler  creatures  with  the  gift  of  reason,  would  dare  to  sin 
against  myself  and  him — to  sin  against  light  and  know- 
ledge— all  for  your  sake,  Mary  !" 

^'  Then  I  will  not  ask  you  again.  The. )  if  these  are  your 
feelings,  right  or  wrong,  I  cannot,  will  not  ask  you  to  com- 
mit so  great  a  crime  for  my  sake.  But,  Theophilus,  others 
have  done  so  :  others  have  given  up  their  peculiar  views  for 
the  sake  of  family  quiet :  do  you  charge  tliem  with  all  these 
crimes  ?'' 

^^  I  speak  only  for  myself,  Mary.  What  others  may  have 
done  or  may  yet  do,  can  be  of  no  weight  in  settling  a  case 
of  conscience  with  me.  If  any  one  has  been  influenced  by 
worldly  ambition,  parental  influence,  or  other  improper 
motive,  to  join  any  Church  against  his  or  her  convictions  of 
religious  duty,  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  every  such  person 
has  committed  a  great  sin.  It  may  have  been  done — the 
Lord  knows — but  he  also  knows  that  I  cannot  do  it;  I 
should  forfeit  his  favor,  and  incur  his  righteous  displeasure.'' 

^'  That  settles  the  question,  then,  Theophilus." 

^^Not  altogether,  Mary;  I  wish  to  know  now,  if,  with  this 
frank  avowal  of  my  feelings,  you  are  willing  to  adhere  to 
our  engagement  ?" 

^'I  will  not  conceal  from  you,  Theophilus,  the  truth.  I 
have  been  forced  to  try  your  integrity — in  the  event  of 
success  I  know  not  how  I  should  have  felt.  I  hoped  you 
would  yield;  yet  I  feared  that  you  had  gone  too  far  to 
retrace  your  steps  ;  and  if  your  sacrifice  involved  any  moral 
principle,  I  would  not  have  you  to  yield.  And  yet,  if  you 
do  not,  I  am  sure  that  we  shall  not  get  father's  consent  to 
our  marriage.  It  has  been  a  fearful  issue  with  me,  Theo- 
philus ;  I  must  resign  all  hopes  of  you,  or  incur  my  father's 
displeasure  :  the  two  strongest  ties  of  nature  have  struggled 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  139 

within  me  for  the  mastery.  But  the  question  is  settled. 
Painful  as  it  is  to  me  to  rebel  against  my  parents,  I  cannot 
hesitate;  I  am  yours,  come  what  may  !" 

"  I  sympathize  with  you,  Mary,  in  your  painful  position ; 
and  yet  I  can  but  rejoice  in  your  decision.  But  let  us  do 
nothing  to  provoke  further  opposition.  Let  your  father 
know  your  resolution,  but  do  nothing  to  aggravate  him. 
Perhaps  he  may  yet  see  and  honor  your  integrity  and  virtue. 
In  the  meanwhile  we  may  not  be  so  intimate  as  formerly, 
lest  we  unnecessarily  foment  and  increase  the  strife. '^ 

^'  No,  Theophilus ;  I  will  be  firm  in  my  refusal,  but 
respectful  in  its  terms.  Thus  far  I  consent  to  take  your 
advice.  But,  my  dear  The.,  I  will  not  consent  to  even  an 
apparent  alienation  between  us.  That  might  give  reason- 
able ground  to  hope  for  ultimate  success  upon  the  part  of 
my  father.  No ;  I  have  decided  between  you,  and  I  will 
cleave  to  you  now;  and  more  than  ever  I  desire  to  lean 
upon  your  strong  arm  for  support.  Forsake  me  not  now. 
My  love  for  you  must  support  my  resolution ;  your  presence, 
your  conversation,  your  words  of  kindness  must  sustain  my 
love.  I  could  not  betray  you ;  but  I  must  not  be  separated 
from  you.^' 

^'  But  what  if  your  father  forbids  me  his  house  V 

"  Then  he  must  forbid  it  to  me,  too,''  replied  Mary.  '^I 
will  not  consent  to  stay  where  you  are  not  permitted  to 
come.  But  I  hardly  think  he  will  go  so  far  as  that.  If  he 
does,  leave  the  rest  to  me.     I  will  know  what  to  do.'' 

"Very  well,  Mary;  God  bless  you  and  preserve  you. 
Your  love  is  wealth  and  honor  enous-h  for  me.     Farewell !" 

The  young  couple  took  an  affectionate  leave,  and  Mary's 
clear,  dark  eyes  glistened  with  bright  tears  as  she  saw  her 
lover  disappear. 

The  end  is  not  yet. 


140  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 


CHAPTER    XIII 


CARRIE    MASON  S    REVIEW CONTINUED. 

Carrie  Mason's  aiicUcnce  was  a  little  larger  on  Saturday 
afternoon  than  the  day  before.  Several  young  ladies  and 
two  or  three  young  gentlemen  were  present  who  did  not 
attend  on  Friday,  but  Mary  Ellis  and  the  Misses  Parker 
were  not  there. 

"We  did  not  get  beyond  some  general  objections  on 
yesterday/^  commenced  Carrie ;  "  we  must  begin  now  to 
answer  the  arguments  of  Theodosia. 

"Mr.  Percy,  the  intended  husband  of  Theodosia,  volun- 
teers to  prove  to  her  that  she  had  been  baptized,  notwith- 
standing the  immersion  at  the  river.  He  calls  upon  her 
after  supper,  and  desires  to  begin  by  calling  up  the  wit- 
nesses. His  style  is  assumed  to  be  lawyer-like,  but  I  should 
say  that  if  Mr.  Percy  never  managed  his  causes  in  court 
more  clearly  than  he  did  this  before  Judge  Theodosia,  I 
think  his  clients  had  a  poor  advocate,  if  indeed  a  client 
would  intrust  an  important  case  into  his  hands. 

"  Theodosia  smiles  at  the  proposal,  and  we  are  told  that  it 
was  the  first  smile  that  illumined  her  face  since  she  stood  hy 
the  water.  What  a  jileasant  thing  that  baptismal  water 
must  be  !  She  agrees  to  the  proposition  to  call  up  the  wit- 
nesses, and  examine  them.  First,  however,  Mr.  Percy  must 
state  his  case — what  the  witnesses  are  to  prove.  He  states 
the  case  in   these  words,  with  the  New  Testament  in  his 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  141 

hands:     'Is  the  sj^rinJcIinj  of  mfajits,  in  the  name  of  the 
■  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  the  haptism  ivhich  is  required 
in  this  book  ?' 

''  Now,  you  see  at  a  glance  that  this  is  not  the  question, 
and  one  would  think  the  author  saw  it,  too,  for  he  makes 
Mr.  Percy  say  on  the  very  next  page  that  sprinkling,  pour- 
ing, and  immersion  are  all  modes  of  baptism.  Yet  Mr. 
Percy,  the  lawyer,  and  the  Presbyterian  at  that,  sets  out  to 
prove  that  '  s^rinldhig  of  infants  is  the  only  baptism  re- 
quired in  the  New  Testament  V 

''  That  was  a  clumsy  statement  of  the  case  for  a  lawyer  to 
make,"  said  Theophilus ;  ^'  the  author  of  the  book  certainly 
intended  to  make  him  look  ridiculous.'^ 

^^  No,  Mr.  Walton,"  replied  Carrie,  ^^Mr.  Percy  is  only  a 
man  of  straw,  whom  the  author  intends  to  vanquish.  But 
although  the  author  does  not  intend,  just  here,  to  make  him 
appear  ridiculous,  yet  he  does  do  it  to  a  certainty.  He  is 
going  to  prove  that  infant  baptism  only  is  required;  and  yet 
we  are  told  elsewhere  that  Theodosia  was  six  years  old  when 
she  was  baptized,  and  she  tells  her  mother,  on  page  33,  that 
she  remembers  it.  If  Mr.  Percy  had  proved  his  case  by  his 
witnesses,  Theodosia  might  have  said  that  she  was  not  an 
infant  when  she  was  baptized,  and  so  she  had  not  received 
New  Testament  baptism  at  last ! 

"■  We  will  let  that  pass,  however,  and  hear  some  of  the  wit- 
nesses. Mr.  Percy  calls  up  Webster's  Dictionary,  as  witness 
number  1.  Little  Edwin,  Theodosia's  brother,  a  boy  about 
thirteen  years  of  age,  objects  to  the  witness — challenges  him, 
I  believe  the  lawyers  call  it — on  the  ground  that  Webster's 
Dictionary  is  in  English,  and  that  haptize  is  a  Greek  word. 
Edwin  heard  the  Baptist  preacher  tell  Mr.  Anxious  that 
King  James  would  not  let  the  translators  translate  haptidzoj 
but  made  them  transfer  it  into  English.  Now  you  remem- 
ber that  father  showed  you  the  testimony,  night  before  last, 


142  THEOPEILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

disproving  this  assertion — the  testimony  of  a  Baptist  writer, 
proving  that  the  king  did  not  hinder  them  from  translating 
the  word/^ 

^^I  remember  that  very  distinctly,"  said  Theophilus, 
^'  and  I  remember,  too,  that  the  Kev.  Dr.  Ide,  an  eminent 
Baptist  preacher,  says  :  ^  I  suppose  that  baptize  is  the  only 
English  word  by  which  you  can  translate  baptidzo.'  Dr. 
Williams,  another  distinguished  Baptist,  in  New  York,  says  : 
^  On  the  score  of  age,  the  word  haptize  is  probably  some 
six  centuries  older,  as  an  English  word,  than  the  term 
immerse.' " 

"  Thank  you  for  those  quotations,  Mr.  Walton ;  they  are 
precisely  in  point,''  said  Carrie ;  ^^  and  now,  Mr.  Price,  as 
you  are  a  lawyer,  we'll  let  you  decide  a  point  for  us.  How 
do  you  act  in  court  when  witnesses  do  not  agree  ?  How  do 
you  decide  the  matter  ?" 

"By  the  preponderance  of  testimony,  of  course.  Miss 
Mason,"  replied  Mr.  Price. 

"  Very  well,  then,"  continued  Carrie,  "  we  have  an  anony- 
mous Baptist  preacher  testifying  that  baptize  is  a  Greek 
word.  He  is  the  only  witness  on  that  side.  On  the  other 
we  have  Dr.  Ide  and  Dr.  Williams  testifying  that  it  is  an 
English  word." 

'^And  you  may  add,  Miss  Carrie,"  said  Theophilus,  "  the 
testimony  of  Dr.  Dowling,  Dr.  Lynd.  and  Dr.  Cone.  I  will 
read  their  testimony  : 

"  '  The  word  baptize  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  an 
English  word.' — Dr.  Dowling. 

"  ^  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  word  baptize  in  English 
literature  has  become  generic' — Dr.  Lynd. 

'^^The  English  word  baptize,  according  to  our  standard 
lexicographers,  means  to  sprinkle,  etc. — Dr.  Cone. 

"There  they  are,"  said  Theophilus,  "plain,  and  to  the 
point." 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  143 

"  Well,  I  submit  the  question  to  the  jury  :  is  baptize  an 
English  word  ?  One  Baptist  preacher,  nobody  knows  who 
he  is,  says  not;  jive  distinguished  Baptists  say  that  it  h. 
Then  we  carry  the  case,  Edwin's  objection  is  overruled,  and 
Webster's  English  Dictionary  is  admitted  as  evidence. 
Now,  we  are  told  that  Webster  says  that  baptism  is  the 
application  of  water  as  a  religious  ordinance.  Then  his  tes- 
timony is  on  our  side — he  testifies  that  no  particular  mode 
is  essential. 

"  This  is  the  only  witness  called  up  by  Mr.  Percy,  on  the 
first  night.  He  agrees  to  leave  the  matter  to  the  decision  of 
the  lexicons  of  the  G-reek  language,  and  I  suppose  we  must 
follow  him  there." 

"Stop,  Carrie,"  said  one  of  the  ladies,  "you  promised 
yesterday  to  leave  the  Latin  and  Greek  to  your  father  and 
Theophilus." 

"  So  I  will,"  replied  Carrie.  "  I  am  only  going  to  follow 
up  the  testimony,  not  to  make  a  criticism.  Mr.  Percy  was 
not  a  Greek  scholar,  and  yet  he  determines  to  search  the 
lexicons,  to  see  what  they  say  about  the  word.  Edwin  pro- 
duces Donnegan's  Lexicon  on  the  Baptist  side,  as  a  witness. 
Donnegan's  testimony  is  thus  given  : 

"  ^Bajitidzo,  to  immerse  repeatedly  into  a  liquid,  to  sub- 
merge, to  soak  thoroughly,  to  saturate.' 

"  Now  I  have  examined  father's  library,  and  I  found  three 
lexicons,  Grove,  Liddell  and  Scott,  and  Robinson.  I  will 
read  their  definitions  just  as  I  copied  them  from  the  books : 

"  '  Baptidzo,  to  dip,  immerse,  immerge,  plunge ;  to  loasli^ 
cleanse,  purify  ;  to  baptize.' — Grove. 

"  ^  Baptidzo,  to  dip  repeatedly,  dip  under ;  to  pour  uj^oiij 
drench  ;  in  New  Testament,  to  haptizeJ — Liddell  and  Scott. 

"  ^  Baptidzo,  to  dip  in,  to  sink,  to  immerse )  in  New  Tes- 
tament, to  iva<ilij  to  lave,  to  cleanse  by  washing,  to  haptize.' 
— Robinson 


144  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^  Now  it  appears  tliat  one  witness  testifies  that  tlie  Greek 
word  haptidzo  means  to  immerse,  and  uses  only  equivalent 
words  in  defining  it.  We  introduce  three  other  witnesses, 
however,  who  say  that  the  word  does  mean  more  than  im- 
merse, and  therefore  define  it  by  such  terms  as  to  wash, 
cleanse,  etc.  Now,  on  the  principle  that  preponderance  of 
testimony  settles  the  question,  we  have  gained  this  point, 
too.  We  have  all  the  witnesses  in  English,  and  three  to 
one  in  the  Greek,  on  the  Pedobaptist  side." 

'^  But  your  witnesses  all  agree  that  immerse  was  the 
'primary  meaning.  Miss  Carrie,"  said  Mr.  Price. 

^^  What  do  you  mean  hj  prima  ri/,  Mr.  Price?  I  do  not 
understand  you,"  said  Carrie. 

"•  Why,  the  most  common  meaning  :  it  is  placed  first  among 
the  definitions." 

''I  know  nothing  about  that,  Mr.  Price,"  she  answered; 
*^  I  am  not  sufficiently  acquainted  with  the  language  to  tell 
whether  the  first  meaning  in  the  dictionary  is  the  ordinary 
one  or  not.  I  leave  that  matter  to  Theophilus  and  other 
Greek  scholars.  All  the  use  I  have  for  the  lexicons  is  to 
show  that  they  are  three  to  one  against  the  Baptist  position 
that  haptidzo  only  means  to  immerse.  One  witness  says  it 
has  but  one,  and  three  witnesses  say  it  has  more  than  one 
meaning.  The  testimony  is,  then,  on  my  side ;  is  it  not, 
Mr.  Pri'ce  ?" 

'^  It  certainly  is,"  replied  Mr.  Price,  ^'  if  you  take  the 
simple  question  whether  the  word  has  more  meanings  than 
one." 

^'  That  is  the  only  question  at  issue,  Mr.  Price.  Whether 
this  word  is  used  in  the  New  Testament  in  this  or  that  sense, 
we  are  not  now  endeavoring  to  determine.  We  are  only 
seeking  to  know  whether  the  word  was  used  in  more  senses 
than  one." 

^^Then  I  admit  that  you  have  gained  j^our  case,  Miss 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  145 

Carrie/^  said  Mr.  Price  :    ^^  the  evidence  is  clearly  on  your 
side.'' 

'^  Very  well/'  replied  Carrie,  '^we  proceed  now  with  the 
second  night's  study.  Mr.  Percy  goes  home  resolving  to  ex- 
amine the  various  lexicons,  and  on  the  next  evening  we  hear 
him  complaining  that  the  lexicons  have  ^IcillecC  him.  He 
submits  the  case,  and  therefore  we  dismiss  him,  as  an  ineffi- 
cient advocate.  He  suffered  one  witness  to  be  ruled  out 
without  making  an  effort  to  save  him ;  and  before  the  astound- 
ing fact  that  one  lexicon  is  against  him,  loses  heart,  and 
gives  up  the  case.  We  can  have  no  further  use  for  so  poor 
a  lawyer. 

''  Mr.  Johnson,  the  Presbyterian  pastor,  comes  in  to  aid 
Mr.  Percy's  cause.  Mr.  Johnson  sets  out  by  telling  us  that 
he  ^  never  studied  these  controversies  much,'  and  I  think  we 
shall  have  good  reason  to  agree  with  him  in  his  confession 
of  ignorance.  He  is  puzzled  at  the  very  first  onset  of  The- 
odosia,  and  finally  becomes  frightened  at  the  announcement 
that  the  Baptist  schoolmaster  is  coming :  takes  up  his  hat,  and 
bows  himself  out.  Mr.  Johnson,  however,  before  he  takes 
leave,  requests  Theodosia  to  examine  some  of  the  standard 
writers  on  the  subject.  Theodosia  says  there  are  no  books  on 
the  subject  in  the  house  except  the  Bible;  but  after  awhile 
she  discovers  that  they  have  got  Barnes's  Notes  on  the  Gos- 
pels, and  Macknight  on  the  Epistles." 

^'  Of  course  they  must  have  Machnight,^'  said  Mr.  Price : 
^^  he  is  a  fine  author  to  teach  Presbyterians  the  proper  mode 
of  baptism  !" 

'^  Yes,  indeed,  Theodosia  has  no  other  books  but  those 
that  may  be  turned  against  her,  and  to  these  the  appeal 
is  made ;  and  henceforth  Mr.  Percy  helps  to  get  his  own 
cause  into  difficulty.  Mr.  Johnson  gives  a  full  endorsement 
to  Mr.  Barnes,  and  thereupon  they  turn  to  Barnes's  notes  on 
Matthew  iii.  6.  After  some  comments  on  the  language  of 
7 


146  TIIEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

Mr.  Barnes  wliicli  I  do  not  regard  as  wortli  our  wliile  to 
notice,  Mr.  Percy  comes  to  the  following  language :  '  The 
Hebrew  word  (fahal)  which  is  rendered  by  the  word  baptize, 
occurs  in  the  Old  Testament  in  the  following  places  :'  then 
ioWoyr  fifteen  texts  from  the  Old  Testament. 

"I  have  read  this  passage  as  Mr.  Barnes  lorote  it;  but 
Mr.  Percy  slipped  in  the  word  ^  Greek'  before  the  word 
^baptize/  in  order  to  make  it  appear  that  Mr.  Barnes  ad- 
mitted that  baptize  was  a  Greek  word.'^ 

^'It  seems  to  me/'  remarked  Theophilus,  ^'that  Mr. 
Barnes  speaks  very  loosely  in  reference  to  the  matter,  any 
way.  In  what  language  does  he  mean  to  say  that  tahal  is 
rendered  by  baptize  f  If  he  means  the  English,  we  know 
he  is  wrong ;  for  baptize  is  not  in  the  Old  Testament.  If 
he  means  the  Greek,  then  he  should  have  said  that  tahal  in 
Hebrew  was  rendered  by  hapto  or  haptidzo.  I  am  sur- 
prised that  a  man  of  Mr.  Barnes's  ability  should  make  such 
a  mistake  as  that.'' 

^^  But  you  see,  Mr.  Walton,"  replied  Carrie,  "  it  is  for  this 
very  reason  that  such  a  mistake  was  made  by  Mr.  Barnes, 
that  his  Notes  were  found  in  Theodosia's  library.  And  now, 
Mr.  Walton,  we  must  get  your  assistance.  There  is  a  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  is  there  not  V 

^' Yes,  Miss  Carrie,^'  replied  Theophilus;  ^^I  was  looking 
at  it  when  you  came  in  this  afternoon.  It  is  called  the 
Scptuagint,  and  is  thought  to  have  been  made  about  two  or 
three  hundred  years  before  our  Saviour's  time." 

^'  It  must  be  of  some  authority,  then.  Is  that  the  book 
you  have  in  your  hand  ?" 

"  Yes,  this  is  the  best  edition  extant." 

^^  Well,  now,  these  fifteen  places  in  which  the  Hebrew  word 
occurs  are  all  set  down  in  ^Theodosia,'  and  I  want  you  to  see 
whether  or  not  the  Hebrew  word  tahal  is  always  rendered  by 
the  word  haptize.'^ 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  14V 

"By  the  word  hapto,  you  mean,  Miss  Carrie." 

"  Well,  the  word  hapto,  then.  We  will  take  the  first  place 
in  which  it  occurs  in  the  Bible,  Genesis  xxxvii.  31.'' 

"  Let  me  see,''  said  Mr.  Walton ;  "  hapto  is  not  in  this 
verse  at  all !  Tahal  is  translated  here  by  the  Grreek  verb 
molimo,  which  means  to  dye,  to  stain." 

"  Indeed  !  and  is  that  G-reek  word  molimo  a  word  of  mode, 
Mr.  Walton  ?"  asked  Carrie. 

"Not  at  all,"  replied  Theophilus,  "it  means  to  dye,  tinge, 
or  stain,  without  expressing  the  manner  in  which  it  is  done." 

"  Very  well,  Mr.  Walton ;  now  look  at  Leviticus  ix.  9, 
and  tell  us  what  word  answers  to  tabal  there." 

"  The  word  is  hapto  here,"  replied  Theophilus,  after  a  few 
moments'  examination. 

"  Now,  then,  let  us  try  the  Baptist  schoolmaster's  ^  axiom.' 
He  says  that  things  that  are  equal  to  the  same  thing  are 
equal  to  each  other.  This  we  admit.  Then  he  says  further, 
if  dip  in  English,  and  hapto  in  Grreek,  are  equivalent  to 
tahal  in  Hebrew,  then  dip  and  haj^to  are  equivalent  to  each 
other.  If  this  be  good  logic,  it  will  bear  expression  in 
another  form.  If  moluno  in  Greek  and  hapto  in  Greek  are 
both  equivalent  to  tahal  in  Hebrew,  then  hapto  and  moluno 
are  equivalent  to  each  other.  And  further :  if  tahal  in  He- 
brew and  hapto  in  Greek  are  equal  to  moluno  in  Greek,  and 
if,  as  you  say,  moluno  does  not  mean  to  dip,  then  neithet 
tahal  nor  hapto  means  to  dip,  for  things  which  are  equal  to 
the  same  thing  must  be  equal  to  each  other !" 

"You  are  getting  beyond  your  depth,  now,"  exclaimed 
one  of  the  young  ladies. 

"Not  she!"  answered  Mr.  Price;  "if  the  Baptist  school 
master  made  a  ^  demonstration,'  she  has  made  one,  too.  Hei 
logic  is  as  good  as  his." 

"  To  be  sure  it  is,"  said  Theophilus,  "  and  her  demonstra- 


148  THEOPHILUS     WALTON. 

tion  takes  tlie  point  oif  tlie  ^  axiom'  of  the  sclioolmaster. 
Shall  we  proceed  with  the  texts,  Miss  Carrie  ?" 

^^Not  this  afternoon,  Mr.  Walton.  Indeed,  I  think  we 
may  dismiss  Mr.  Barnes  altogether.  You  have  discovered 
two  important  blunders  in  his  Notes,  and  I  am  willing  now 
to  leave  him  in  the  custody  of  Theodosia." 

"We  can  afford  to  spare  him,  on  this  subject  at  least.'' 

"  I  perceive  that  it  is  getting  late,"  remarked  Carrie  : 
"  perhaps  we  had  better  desist  for  the  present.  Shall  we  as- 
semble again  ?" 

"  By  all  means,"  replied  Mr.  Price ;  "  I  am  very  much  in- 
terested in  your  inquiries,  no  less  so  than  in  those  of  your 
father;  and  I  think  your  efforts  will  result  in  good  to  some 
of  us." 

"  When  shall  we  meet  ?"  asked  Carrie. 

"  On  Tuesday  afternoon,"  replied  Theophilus,  "  if  it  meets 
your  convenience." 

Miss  Mason  consented,  and  the  party  separated. 


©Itivrt  (Bvtmu^. 


THE    GREEK   WORDS   BAPTO   AND   BAPTIDZO 
EXAMINED. 


THEIR  CLASSICAL  AND  SCRIPTURAL  USE. 


MORE  BAPTIST  TESTIMONY.  — DR.  FULLER,  DR. 
CARSON,  DR.   GALE,  AND  DR.  COX. 


TnE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  151 


THIRD    EVENING. 


On  Monday  evening  there  was  a  larger  audience  in 
attendance  than  on  the  two  previous  occasions.  It  had 
been  noised  abroad  that  Mr.  Battle,  the  champion  of  the 
Baptists,  had  been  sent  for,  and  that  he  was  expected  to 
arrive  before  night.  As  his  warlike  spirit  was  well  known, 
curiosity  drew  out  many  who  did  not  feel  otherwise  an 
interest  in  the  matter,  to  see  the  issue  of  the  contest. 

Mr.  Mason  began  at  the  usual  hour,  addressing  himself 
to  Theophilus  as  before  : 

"  On  Friday  evening,  you  remember,  I  stated  that  if  it 
could  be  proved  that  the  Greek  words  jSarrrw  (hapto)  and 
paTTTL^o)  (baptidzd)  invariably  meant  to  dip,  in  Greek  classi- 
cal literature,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  that  they  were 
used  in  the  same  sense  by  the  New  Testament  writers. 
This  I  proved  by  the  word  oravpog,  {sfauros,)  which  origi- 
nally meant  a  stake  of  wood,  and  in  later  times  a  stake  of 
w^ood  with  a  transverse  beam.  But  by  our  Saviour  the 
bearing  of  the  cross  (or  stauros^  is  commanded  under  the 
penalty  of  being  rejected  from  discipleship.  If,  then,  we 
can  take  only  the  original  meaning  of  the  word  cross,  the 
terms  of  salvation  become  well-nigh  impossible  of  perform- 
ance, as  well  as  unreasonable  in  their  character.  All  the 
lexicons  in  the  world  would  never  help  us  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word ;  it  does  not  depend  on  the  heathen  usage,  nor 


152  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

yet  on  tlie  Jewisli  usage,  for  its  definition.  In  tlic  New 
Testament  it  has  a  meaning  which  it  never  possessed  before." 

"  By  the  way,  Mr.  Mason/'  said  Theophilus,  "  that  this 
commandment  may  have  something  to  do  with  the  Roman 
Catholic  uses  of  the  cross  appears  very  plain  to  me.  You 
know  it  is  a  universal  symbol  among  them.  They  wear  it 
around  their  necks,  many  of  them,  and  thus  seem  to  fulfil 
the  commandment  as  the  Baptists  require  it  to  be  under- 
stood." 

'^  Yes,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  '^  many  of  them  wear  a 
diminutive  cross  about  their  necks,  especially  the  females; 
but  I  do  not  think  that  they  regard  the  practice,  either  in 
part  or  in  whole,  as  a  keeping  of  this  commandment. 

'^  However  that  may  be,  we  are  now  to  turn  our  attention 
to  those  words  whose  interpretation  has  so  long  divided  the 
educated  world.  But  before  we  proceed  to  examine  their 
classical  usage,  we  must  again  see  how  much  of  harmoni/ 
prevails  among  Baptist  writers  on  this  subject.  Dr.  Fuller, 
whom  I  have  already  quoted,  says,  on  the  14th  page  of  his 
work:  'To  say  that  haptizo  has  three  different  meanings, 
only  proves  how  strangely  controversy  can  blind  the  mind  to 
the  plainest  things.  ...  To  say  that  a  word  means  three 
distinct  things  is  to  say  that  it  means  neither  of  them.' 
Now  let  us  hear  Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  the  great  champion 
of  immersion  in  Ireland,  and  see  how  he  agrees  with  his 
American  brother.  On  the  44th  page  of  his  work  Dr.  Car- 
son says  :  '  Having  established  the  meaning  of  this  word 
(hajyto)  as  significant  of  mode,  I  shall  now  show  that  it  sig- 
nifies also  to  dye.  .  .  .  Now,  while  I  contend  that  dyeing 
is  the  secondary  meaning  of  this  word,  I  also  contend  that  it 
is  a  real,  LITERAL  meaning,  independent  of  consequence. 
Although  this  meaning  arose  from  the  mode  of  dyeing  by 
dipping,  yet  the  word  has  come  by  appropriation  to  denote 
dyeing  without  reference  to  mode.'  " 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  153 

"And  there  you  have  the  doctors  by  the  ears  again  V 
exclaimed  Theophilus.  ^'  Dr.  Fuller  says  a  word  cannot 
have  three  distinct  meanings,  whilst  Dr.  Carson  says  it 
can.'' 

"  Yes,  Theophilus/'  answered  Mr.  Mason,  "  and  Dr.  Car- 
son goes  on  to  cite  examples  from  Greek  writers  in  proof 
that  hajHo  sometimes  means  dyeing  by  dropping  the  fluid, 
by  applying  the  fluid  to  the  beard,  to  the  hair  of  the  head, 
and  by  the  fluid  ruiuiing  cloion  over  the  garment.  Now  here 
are  several  distinct  acts,  all  of  which  are  contained  in  one 
word;  and  if  dipping  a  thing,  dropping  something  ou  it, 
applying  a  fluid  to  it,  and  sufi"ering  a  fluid  to  run  down  over 
it,  are  all  contained  in  hapto,  as  Dr.  Carson  says,  then  it  fol- 
lows, from  Dr.  Fuller's  position,  that  hap>to  has  no  meaning 
at  all !  Dr.  Carson  has  been  ^  strangely  blinded,'  Dr.  Fuller 
would  have  us  believe,  '■  to  the  plainest  things  !'  Yet  Dr. 
Carson  says  dip  is  in  the  word  hapfo  in  some  places,  and  in 
some  places  it  is  not.  And  this  fact,  he  says,  '  I  will  put 
beyond  question.' 

''  We  have  this  question  settled  for  us,  then,  by  a  distin- 
guished Baptist  writer,  that  the  Grreek  root  from  which  we 
get  the  English  word  baptize,  does  not  always  mean  one 
mode;  but  includes  any  mode  by  which  dyeing  may  be 
done.  In  order,  then,  to  fortify  our  views  by  strong 
Baptist  testimony,  we  have  only  to  turn  to  Dr.  G-ale's 
Beflections  on  Dr.  Wall's  History  of  Infant  Baptism,  and 
find,  on  page  97,  that  Dr.  Gale  says  the  words  hapto  and 
haptidzo  'are  synonymous.'  Dr.  Carson  says  one  of  these 
words  does  not  always  mean  to  dip,  and  Dr.  Gale  says  that 
the  two  words  are  synonymous  in  meaning.  Then  it  follows 
if  one  of  these  words  does  not  always  mean  to  dip,  that  the 
other  does  not  always  mean  to  dip.  Otherwise  they  cannot 
be  equivalent  to  each  other." 

''  That  is  a  plain  case,"  said  Theophilus,  "  and  if  Baptist 


154  THEOPHILUS    WALTONJ     OR, 

testimony  is  to  be  credited,  we  must  grant  tliat  the  point  is 
established/' 

*'  I  might  go  on/'  resumed  Mr.  Mason,  ^'  and  show  you 
that  Pedobaptists  need  nothing  more  to  defend  them  from 
the  attacks  of  the  Baptists  than  the  ^  admissions'  of  '  learned 
Baptist  divines.'  I  will  give  you  more  of  these  concessions 
in  their  proper  place. 

^'  I  could  cite  you  to  many  passages  in  which  these  words 
{hapto  and  haptidzo^  are  taken  in  a  generic  sense — passages 
in  which  dipping  is  not  and  cannot  be  meant.  One  or  two 
examples,  however,  of  each  word  will  suffice." 

''  Permit  me  to  ask  you,"  said  Theophilus,  ''  what  is  your 
opinion  as  to  the  original  meaning  of  hapto  ?  Dr.  Carson 
says  its  secondary,  though  literal  meaning,  is  to  dye ;  do  you 
think  he  is  correct?" 

*'  I  think  not,  Theophilus ;  and  I  will  give  you  my  reasons 
directly.  In  all  languages,  words  have,  more  or  less,  in 
different  ages,  changed  their  meanings.  The  Greek  is  no 
exception  to  this  rule,  as  Dr.  Carson  proves.  What 
changes  it  may  have  undergone  during  the  nine  hundred  or 
one  thousand  years  from  Homer  to  St.  Matthew,  no  man 
can  tell.  We  know  that  the  Grreek  language  was  in  its 
infancy  in  Homer's  time;  that  it  arrived  at  its  highest 
degree  of  excellence  and  purity  in  the  days  of  Xenophon, 
Thucydides,  and  Plato ;  and  that  under  the  Macedonian  and 
Roman  dominion  it  rapidly  declined — becoming  corrupted 
by  foreign  words,  and  possessing  few  writers  of  taste  and 
excellence.  It  is  also  evident  that  the  Jews  did  not  come  in 
contact  with  the  Grreeks  until  at  and  after  the  Macedonian 
conquests.  They  were  only  introduced  to  the  language, 
then,  when  the  process  of  corruption  had  commenced.  This 
fact  must  be  of  great  importance  in  studying  the  New 
Testament,  for,  as  you  well  know,  the  evangelists  used  what 
is  called  Hellenistic  Greek. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  155 

^'Now,  in  reference  to  the  question  in  hand.  It  is 
admitted  that  a  change  passed  upon  the  word  hapto.  This 
vDr.  Carson  affirms.  No  matter  when  it  occurred,  the  change 
is  admitted.  The  issue  between  us  is,  then,  what  was  that 
change  ?  Was  it  from  a  modal  to  a  generic  sense  ?  So  Dr. 
Carson  affirms.  I  take  the  opposite  ground,  and  affirm  that 
it  was  from  a  generic  to  a  modal  sense;  and  that  after  it 
was  used  to  signify  dipping,  the  old  idea  of  dyeing  was  still 
retained.  Therefore  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find  the 
word  used  in  both  senses  by  the  same  author. 

"If,  as  Dr.  Carson  thinks,  the  dipping  expressed  by 
hapto  was  the  cause  of  attaching  the  secondary  meaning  of 
dyeing  to  it,  what  is  the  reason  that  the  Greek  verb  dupto 
(dvTTTOj)  does  not  signify  to  dye  ?  That  it  means  to  dip  is 
plain,  and  it  means  nothing  else  but  mode.  But  we  need 
not  be  left  to  conjecture  on  this  subject.  The  first  Greek 
ivriter  who  uses  the  word  bapto  gives  the  meaning  of  dyeing 
to  it.  This  is  a  remarkable  fact,  and  is  acknowledged  to  be 
a  fact  by  our  opponents.  In  the  Battle  of  the  Frogs  and 
Mice,  a  burlesque  poem.  Homer,  who  lived  nine  hundred 
years  before  Christ,  describing  the  death  of  the  frog  Cram- 
bophagus,  says  :  '  He  fell  and  breathed  no  more,  and  the 
lake  was  tinged  or  dyed  (e/SaTrrero)  with  blood.'  On  this 
passage  Dr.  Carson  says  :  '  To  suppose  that  there  is  here  any 
extravagant  allusion  to  the  literal  immersion  or  dipping  of  a 
lake  is  a  monstrous  perversion  of  taste.  The  lake  is  said  to 
be  dyed — not  to  be  dipped,  nor  poured,  nor  sprinkled. 
There  is  in  the  word  no  reference  to  mode.  .  .  .  What  a 
monstrous  paradox  in  rhetoric  is  the  figure  of  the  dipping 
of  a  lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse  !'  So  I  think.  Please 
remeiuber  that  our  Baptist  witness  says  there  is  no  refer- 
ence TO  MODE  in  this  case.  Now,  how  many  writers  have 
we  older  than  Homer?" 

"  None  that  I  know  of.'* 


156  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^And  how  shall  we  determine  the  original  use  of  a  word?" 
"  By  examining  the  oldest  writers,  of  course/' 
"  If  Homer  uses  (Sdnrd)  without  reference  to  mode,  what 
authority  has  any  man  to  say  that  it  was  originally  a  word 
of  mode  V 

"  Why,  Mr.  Mason,  I  can  see  none.  If  the  first  writer  on 
record  uses  the  word  as  a  generic  term,  it  \s  prima  facie  evi- 
dence that  such  was  its  original  sense." 

^'  That  is  certainly  true.  Dr.  Carson  infers  that  dyeing  is 
the  secondary  meaning,  because  it  was  generally  done  by 
dipping.  He  makes  to  dij)  the  primary,  and  to  dye  the 
secondary  meaning.  But  where  is  his  authority  ?  He 
infers  it.  But  in  a  case  where  demonstrative  evidence  can- 
not be  procured,  one  inference  is  no  better  than  another. 
TFe,  on  our  side,  can  infer  that  jSaTrro)  originally  meant  to 
dye;  and  inasmuch  as  the  most  common  method  of  dyeing 
was  by  dipping  the  article  into  the  coloring  fluid,  so  in  pro- 
cess of  time  the  word  began  to  mean  to  dip.  Thus  we  have 
the  primary  signification  to  dye,  the  secondary  to  dip. 
This,  as  a  mere  inference,  is  as  good  as  Dr.  Carson's  theory; 
and  if  Pedobaptists  were  accustomed  to  deal  in  dogmatism, 
we  might  defy  the  learned  world  to  refute  our  position. 
We  know  that  it  cannot  be  done,  for  there  are  no  data  that 
can  be  used.  The  word  occurs  in  the  first  Greek  writer  in 
both  a  generic  and  a  modal  sense — both  to  dye  and  to  dip: 
which  of  these  is  the  primary  meaning  no  living  man  can 
positively  tell.  As  I  have  already  said,  I  believe  the  proba- 
bilities are  in  favor  of  the  generic  sense,  to  dye.  I  come  to 
this  conclusion  from  the  following  facts  :  There  seems  to  be 
no  other  word  used  by  the  early  Greek  writers  to  express  the 
idea  of  dyeing.  The  word  eyxp^^^^  (egchrodzo')  signifies  to 
ruh  in,  to  anoint,  and  iioXvvcd  {moluno)  means  to  stain;  but 
neither  of  these  expresses  fully  the  idea  of  dyeing.  If  the 
Greeks  had  the  idea  before  the  days  of  Homer,  they  cer- 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  157 

tainly  had  tlie  word — if  (SdiTrG)  was  not,  what  ivas  the 
word  ?  We  know  that  they  had  a  word  which  meant  to  dij), 
which  they  formed  from  (5?;va),  to  enter  or  drive  in.  Is  it 
probable  that  two  words  existed  which  expressed  the  mode 
of  dyeing,  whilst  there  was  710  word  to  express  the  thing 
itself?  The  idea  of  changing  the  color  of  a  garment,  for 
instance,  would  enter  into  a  language  in  its  very  infancy — 
this  is  obvious.  If,  then,  it  cannot  be  shown  that  any 
other  root  in  the  Greek  language  expressed  this  idea,  and 
we  find  (3dTT~(i)  so  used  by  the  very  earliest  writers  in  Greek, 
the  conclusion,  I  think,  is  irresistible  that  its  original  mean- 
ing was  to  dye.  When  we  find  later  Greek  writers  using 
the  word  to  express  the  dyeing  of  the  hair,  beard,  garments, 
swords,  and  other  articles,  which  is  frequently  the  case,  we 
understand  them  as  giving  it  its  'primary  and  not  its 
secondary  meaning. 

"  From  this  primary  idea  of  changing  the  color  of  a 
thing,  the  general  idea  of  changing  its  condition  by  the 
application  of  any  fluid  is  natural  and  easy.  Originally 
confined  to  a  fluid  used  in  dyeing,  the  word  was  soon 
applied  to  water — expressing  not  necessarily  a  change  in  the 
color  of  the  thing  to  which  the  water  was  applied,  but 
expressing  the  change  in  the  condition  of  the  thing.  This 
change  may  be  accomplished  either  by  applying  the  article 
to  the  fluid  or  the  fluid  to  the  article.  All  the  examples 
produced  from  the  classics  to  prove  the  dipping  of  things 
into  water,  honey,  wax,  and  other  fluids,  will  not  overthrow 
my  position.  As  a  generic  word,  expressing  simply  a 
change  in  the  condition  of  a  thing,  any  mode,  whether  it  be 
dipping,  smearing,  pouring,  rubbing,  or  any  other,  is  per- 
fectly consonant  with  the  original  sense  of  the  term. 

"  No  matter  how  many  examples  are  produced  in  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures  to  prove  that  f^dnro)  signifies  to  dij),  if 
there  is  a  sins-le  one  in  which  this  mode  cannot  be  under- 


158  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

stood,  my  position  is  distinctly  proved  by  the  Scriptures 
themselves.  Such  a  passage  there  is,  and  it  is  indeed 
amusing  to  see  the  efforts  that  have  been  made  to  avoid  it. 
Please  turn  to  the  fourth  chapter  of  Daniel,  and  read  the 
33d  verse.'' 

^^  ^  The  same  hour  was  the  thing  fulfilled  upon  Nebuchad- 
nezzar :  and  he  was  driven  from  men,  and  did  eat  grass  as 
oxen,  and  his  body  ivas  wet  with  the  dew  of  heaven,  till  his 
hairs  were  grown  like  eagles'  feathers,  and  his  nails  like 
birds'  claws.'  " 

"  The  word  in  the  Septuagint  which  is  translated  ivet  is 
t:(3d(()7].  The  idea  of  dipping  a  man  in  the  dew  of  heaven  is 
absurd.  Seeing  the  force  of  this  passage.  Dr.  Cox,  a  distin- 
guished Baptist,  says  :  '■  It  does  not  imply  the  manner  in 
which  the  effect  was  produced,  but  the  effect  itself ;  not  the 
mode  by  which  the  body  of  the  king  was  wetted,  but  its 
condition,  as  resulting  from  exposure  to  the  dews  of  hea- 
ven.' This  is  Baptist  testimony,  and  comes  very  near  the 
truth.  Dr.  Carson,  however,  takes  his  brother  Baptist  by 
the  ears,  and  says :  '  Without  doubt  the  verb  expresses 
mode  here  as  well  as  anywhere  else.  To  suppose  the  con- 
trary gives  up  the  p)oint  at  issue  as  far  as  mode  is  concerned. 
This,  in  fact,  makes  hapto  signify  simply  to  wet,  without 
reference  to  mode.' — Page  37.  Unfortunately  for  Dr.  Car- 
son, he  must  change  the  whole  sentence  in  the  Septuagint, 
if  he  gets  his  mode  out  of  it.  He  would  have  it  read, 
'  immersed  or  dipped  in  dew.^  The  Grreek  expression  is 
E\id^r\  drro  T7]g  dpoaov,  chajjhe  apo  tes  drosou.  The  preposi- 
tion h',  in,  is  not  there.  '  What  a  monstrous  perversion  of 
taste'  it  would  be  to  say  the  body  of  the  king  was  dipped 
ivith  («_po)  dew  !  '  Theodosia'  thinks  it  is  '  a  most  beautiful 
though  hyperbolical  expression !'  Dr.  Carson  thinks  j^oets 
are  allowed  to  use  such  '  animated  expressions.'  Alas  I 
what  will  not  sectarian  zeal  attempt  in  defence  of  its  favorite 


THE    MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  159 

dogmas!  Daniel  must  become  a  poet;  tlie  sacred  writer 
must  use  hyperholical  expressions  in  describing  a  literal 
matter  of  fact,  in  order  to  save  tlie  doctrine  of  immersion. 
But  it  will  not  do.  There  is  no  poetry  about  it — no  heavy 
dews,  no  hyperbole — the  whole  thing  is  a  plain  fact.  The 
body  of  the  king  was  wetted  by  the  dew  descending  upon 
him.  It  does  not  matter  whether  it  was  a  Syrian,  an  Ara- 
bian, or  an  Egyptian  deic — he  was  not  dipped  in  it ;  that  is 
beyond  doubt.  If  there  was  deiu  enough  to  immerse 
Nebuchadnezzar,  he  would  never  have  passed  another  night 
in  it  alive.  Dr.  Cox,  we  have  seen,  as  Carson  says,  gives  up 
the  point  in  dispute.  Dr.  Carson,  it  is  true,  endeavors  to 
rescue  the  cause  from  this  sad  predicament  by  ever  so  many 
quotations  from  Virgil,  to  show  how  the  poets  use  words  of 
this  sort;  but  his  labor  is  in  vain.  Every  step  he  takes 
makes  the  matter  worse.  The  Book  of  Daniel  is  not  a  book 
oi  poctri/ ;  it  is  not  an  epic  poem;  it  claims  nothing  at  our 
hands  in  the  shape  of  p)oetic  license.  To  illustrate  his  mon- 
strous interpretation  of  the  baptism  of  dew  by  quotations 
from  poetical  writers  is  simply  absurd.  If  it  were  allowable, 
the  artifice  would  recoil  against  himself.  We  could  show 
that  the  dipipinr/  which  Edwin's  schoolmate  got  by  p)0uring 
a  bucket  of  water  over  himself,  would  take  the  literal  dip 
out  of  the  Bible.  A  few  examples  will  suffice  to  show  how 
Qdi^Wj  poetry  will  subserve  our  interests  as  well  as  theirs.  In 
common  language,  we  say  that  a  thing  has  been  dipped  if  it 
is  as  wet  as  if  it  had  been  immersed  in  water.  This  is  the 
principle  brought  into  requisition.  Well,  Joseph's  coat  was 
not  literally  dipped  in  the  kid's  blood,  (Gen.  xxxvii.  31;) 
it  was  only  stained  as  much  as  if  it  had  been  dipped.  The 
priest  did  not  literally  dip  his  finger  in  the  blood  of  the  bul- 
lock ;  he  poured  the  blood  on  his  finger,  and  made  it  as  wet 
as  if  it  had  been  dipped.  Hazael  (2  Kings  viii.  15)  did 
not  dip  the  thick  cloth  in  the  water ;  he  only  made  it  as  wet 


160  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

as  if  it  had  been  clipped.  So  we  might  turn  '  the  mode'  out 
of  the  Bible  altogether.  There  is  just  as  much  poetri/, 
just  as  much  hyperbole,  in  these  cases  as  in  that  of  Nebu- 
chadnezzar. If  these  are  literal  accounts  of  literal  dip- 
pings in  blood  and  water,  so  the  last  is  a  wetting  ivith,  and 
not  an  immersion  in,  the  dew  of  heaven.'^ 

'^  That  is  perfectly  clear  to  my  mind,"  said  Theophilus ; 
^^I  see  no  reason  why  such  a  man  as  Dr.  Carson  should 
deny  it." 

'^  He  had  the  strongest  reason  that  could  possibly  influ- 
ence a  sectarian,  Theophilus.  He  admitted  that  (idirrb) 
means  to  dye,  without  reference  to  mode,  but  if  he  admitted 
that  it  means  to  loet,  without  reference  to  mode,  his  cause 
was  lost !  Away  goes  the  whole  superstructure  of  Baptist 
churches,  if  such  an  acknowledgment  be  made  !  Therefore, 
he  will  quote  Milton,  Shakspeare,  Virgil,  and  ever  so  many 
poets,  to  lend  him  a  helping  hand.  In  this  manner  the 
account  of  the  fall  of  man  is  made  a  beautiful  fable — the 
talking  of  the  serpent  to  Eve  is  a  ^  most  beautiful  but  hyper- 
bolical expression ;'  the  life  of  Christ  is  worked  up  by  the 
German  Strauss  into  a  beautiful  myth — a  sacred  allegory, 
descriptive  of  man's  moral  nature — but  Jesus  Christ  was  not 
a  real  character.  In  defence  of  their  positions,  the  Neologists 
will  give  any  quantity  of  poe^r^;  they  will  quote  the  Koran, 
the  Zendavesta  of  the  Persians,  the  Theogony  of  Hesiod, 
and  other  compositions  innumerable.  Upon  Dr.  Carson's 
principles  of  interpretation,  the  Bible  becomes  a  fable,  sure 
enough.  We  know  not  what  is  literal,  and  what  poeti- 
cal. 

'■^  Dr.  Fuller  avoids  this  text  by  saying  we  have  nothing  to 
do  with  hapto,  '•  a  ivord  ichich  means  to  dye.'  He  says  :  ^  If 
the  Septuagint  had  employed  haptizo  in  the  case  from 
Daniel,  it  would  only  have  been  an  intensive  metaphor,  like 
this  in  Milton  : 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH  161 

"A  cold  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o'er." 

But  tlie'  term  used  is  not  haptizo,  it  is  bapto.'  This  is  an 
easy  way  to  dispose  of  the  matter.  It  is  another  word,  he 
argues,  and  makes  nothing,  either  for  or  against  immersion. 
Dr.  Carson,  however,  thinks  the  cause  is  lost,  if  Nebuchad- 
nezzar could  not  be  immersed  in  the  dew  of  heaven  ! 

'^  Before  I  leave  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  I  wish  to 
point  out  an  oft-repeated  perversion  of  Scrij)ture,  which  has 
been  made  by  Dr.  Gale,  Dr.  Carson,  Dr.  Fuller,  and  lastly  by 
^  Theodosia  Ernest.'  You  will  please  read  the  6th  verse  of 
the  fourteenth  chapter  of  Leviticus.'' 

"  ^As  for  the  living  bird,  he  shall  take  it,  and  the  cedar 
wood,  and  the  scarlet,  and  the  hyssop,  and  shall  dijy  them 
and  the  living  bird  in  the  blood  of  the  bird  that  was  killed 
over  the  running  water,'  " 

"  Here  you  see,  Theophilus,  the  immersion  of  a  living 
bird,  cedar  wood,  scarlet,  and  a  bunch  of  hyssop,  in  the 
blood  of  one  bird  was  impossible.  Now  read  the  5th  verse, 
and  it  will  tell  you  how  and  ivJiere  the  blood  was  to  be 
caught." 

"  'And  the  priest  shall  command  that  one  of  the  birds  be 
killed  1)1  an  earthen  vessel  over  running  water." 

"  Very  well.  The  blood  was  to  be  caught  in  an  earthen 
vessel  OVER  running  water.  Now  hear  how  '  Theodosia'  gets 
out  of  this  difficulty  : 

"  '  If  you  will  turn  to  Leviticus  xiv.  6,  you  will  see  that 
the  blood  of  the  slain  bird  was  to  be  caught  over  running 
water;  and  as  it  rested  on  or  mixed  with  the  water ^  these 
things  could  all  he  entirely  immersed,  if  need  be.'  Now, 
Theoi)hilus,  do  you  see  any  thing  of  the  blood  of  the  slain  bird 
being  mixed  un'th  the  water  in  the  text  ?" 

^'  Not  a  word,  sir.  It  says  all  these  things  shall  be  dipped 
in  blood,  not  in  blood  and  water." 


162  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

"  Exactly.  But  ^  Tlieodosia'  did  not  get  tlie  '  cue'  from 
her  authorities.  Dr.  Gale  aud  others  explain  it  by  connecting 
the  51st  verse  of  the  same  chapter  with  the  6th.  The  living 
bird,  the  wood,  the  scarlet,  and  the  bunch  of  hj-ssop,  arc 
there  said  to  be  dipped  in  the  blood,  and  also  in  the  running 
water.  It  is  inferred,  therefore,  that  the  blood  and  water 
were  mixed.  This,  however,  does  not  follow,  for  it  says  in 
the  50th,  as  in  the  5th  verse,  that  the  bird  must  be  killed  in 
an  earthen  vessel  over  the  running  water.  It  is  evident 
that  there  are  two  dippings  described  in  the  51st  verse, 
while  there  is  but  one  in  the  6th.  ^  Dip  them  in  the  blood,' 
says  the  6th;  'dip  them  in  the  blood  and  in  the  running 
water,'  says  the  51st ;  that  is,  dip  them  first  in  the  blood, 
then  in  the  water,  and  sprinkle  upon  the  house.  This  is 
shown  by  the  fact  that  tico  commands  are  given,  and  if  the 
blood  and  water  were  mixed,  there  would  have  been  but  one. 
But  this  is  not  all ;  for  if  we  grant  that  in  this  last  case  there 
was  a  mixture  of  the  blood  and  water,  it  does  not  help  the 
matter  in  the  least.  These  are  separate  ceremonies — one 
was  for  the  cleansing  of  a  man,  the  other  for  the  cleansing 
of  a  house — and  the  difference  between  them  was,  that  while 
the  wood,  scarlet,  bird,  and  hyssop  were,  for  the  cleansing  of 
the  man,  to  be  dipped  in  hlood  only,  for  the  cleansing  of  a 
house  they  were  to  be  dipped,  first  in  the  blood,  then  in  the 
water. 

^'  ^  Tlieodosia'  does  not  feel  easy,  after  perverting  the 
Bible  in  this  passage.  '  You  will  remember,'  says  the 
author,  '  that  in  common  language  the  whole  of  a  thing  is 
often  mentioned,  when  a  part  only  is  meant.  I  say,  for 
instance,  that  I  dipped  my  pen  in  ink,  and  wrote  a  line,' 
etc.  Then  follows  Dr.  Gale's  old  illustration  about  the  pen 
being  dipped,  when  only  the  nib  is  immersed.  Here  we 
Lave  '  common  language'  to  help  them  out  of  the  difiiculty. 
As  if  the  legal  statutes  of  Moses,  which  were  exact  in  every 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  163 

particular,  were  written  in  ^  common  language/  As  much 
as  to  say  that  God  commanded  total  immersion,  but  he  only 
meant  partial  immersion  !  The  word  must  mean  dip,  in 
spite  of  common  sense  and  the  plain  word  of  Grod.  Poetry, 
figures,  metaphors,  hyperboles,  loose  expressions,  common 
language,  any  thing  must  be  made  of  Holy  Writ  to  save  the 
infallible  dip  ! 

''  Dr.  Gale,  however,  sensible  that  he  had  failed  in  getting 
immersion  out  of  the  passage,  winds  up  with  these  words  : 
'  The  utmost,  I  say,  that  can  be  inferred  from  this  passage, 
is  only  that  the  word  does  not  always  necessarily  imply  a 
total  immersion,  or  dipping  the  whole  thing  spoken  of  ALL 
OVER,  which  I  readily  alloio.'  He  then  proceeds  to  give  us 
a  rule  which  saves  him  in  this  particular  case,  but  over- 
throws his  argument  when  applied  to  others  :  ^  What  is  true 
of  any  one  part,  may  he  said  of  the  loliole  complexly, 
though  not  of  every  part  of  the  whole  taken  separately.' 
The  English  of  this  rule  is,  that  if  you  dip  your  hand  in  a 
basin  of  water,  you  may  be  said  to  dip  yourself  in  water.  It 
is  indeed  strange  that  Moses  should  use  words  so  inaccurately, 
seeing  that  he  was  then  prescribing  the  law  to  the  children 
of  Israel,  giving  them  for  the  first  time  a  knowledge  of  God's 
requirements,  and,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  case,  he 
must  have  been  exact  in  describing  their  ceremonies.  But 
let  us  admit  that  Moses  intended  no  total  immersion  in  this 
case,  and,  as  Dr.  Gale  says,  that  neither  ^^to,  tahal,  in 
Hebrew,  nor  fidnrG}  in  Greek,  necessarily  implies  a  total  im- 
mersion. Let  us  try  the  strongest  passage  in  favor  of  im- 
mersion which  is  found  in  the  Old  Testament.  I  allude  to 
the  account  given  of  the  cleansing  of  the  leper,  Naaman  the 
Syrian.  The  passage  is  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  the  second 
book  of  Kings.  Elisha  commands  him  to  go  and  ivash 
(Hebrew  yn^,  rahats)  in  Jordan.  He  goes  to  the  river,  and, 
as  our  English  Bible  renders  it,  dips  himself  (Hebrew  ^^t:^ 


164  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

G-reek  jSarrri^o),  haptidzo)  in  Jordan.  Now  what  did 
Naaman  do  ?  Did  he  immerse  his  whole  body,  or  only  part 
of  it?  We  will  let  Naaman  and  Dr.  Gale  determine  this 
question  for  us.  Naaman  said,  verse  11th,  '  I  thought  he 
will  surely  come  out  to  me,  and  stand,  and  call  on  the  name 
of  the  Lord  his  God,  and  strike  his  hand  over  the  place, 
and  recover  the  leper.'  Well,  then,  there  was  a  particular 
place  in  which  the  leprosy  appeared,  and  that  place  he  was 
commanded  to  icash  in  Jordan.  He  goes  down  to  the  river, 
'  and,  according  to  the  saying  of  the  man  of  God,'  haptizes 
THE  PLACE  seven  times.  He  was  not  commanded  to  dip  his 
whole  body,  neither  was  he  commanded  to  dip)  i\\Q  place  in 
Jordan,  but  to  wash  it.  Now,  admitting  that  the  Hebrew 
word  does  not  necessarily  mean  total  immersion,  what  proof 
is  there  that  Naaman  did  wholly  immerse  himself— that  he 
dipped  himself  all  over  ?  Dr.  Gale  says  that  '■  what  may  be 
said  of  a  part  may  be  said  of  the  whole  complexly;'  and 
therefore,  if  he  only  dipped  the  leprous  place,  he  is  said  to 
have  dipped  himself,  and  nothing  like  total  immersion  of  his 
body  is  necessarily  meant  by  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  words. 
So,  then,  we  have  two  points  yielded  to  us.  1.  That  the 
Hebrew  word  tahal  does  not  always  mean  total  immersion. 
2.  That  Naaman  having  dipped  the  place  affected  with 
leprosy,  is  properly  said  to  have  dipped  himself.  Nothing 
like  immersion  in  blood  can  be  found,  then,  in  the  ceremo- 
monial  law,  and  nothing  like  total  immersion  in  this  case  of 
Naaman.  So  we  have  our  position  fortified  by  the  best 
Baptist  testimony,  which  I  will  give  you  in  a  few  proposi- 
tions :  1.  The  Greek  word  (Sdnro)  among  classical  writers 
frequently  means  to  dye,  without  reference  to  mode  :  so  Dr. 
Carson  testifies.  2.  The  Hebrew  word  r-o,  tabal,  does  not 
always  mean  to  immerse,  or  dip  all  over.  So  Dr.  Gale. 
8.  The  baptism  of  dew,  in  the  case  of  Nebuchadnezzar,  does 
not  express  the  mode  by  which  it  was  performed,  but  the 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  165 

condition  of  being  icet.  So  Dr.  Cox.  It  follows,  then,  from 
these  concessions,  that  total  immersion  can  neither  be  found 
in  the  Hebrew  word  tahal,  nor  in  the  Greek  hapto,  in  their 
scriptural  use. 

"  Having  settled  this  point,  we  now  turn  our  attention  to 
the  second  word,  (iairrlc^o),  for  that  word  alone  has  been 
selected  by  the  Holy  Spirit  to  designate  the  ordinance  of 
baptism.  Here  the  whole  controversy  must  at  last  be 
decided,  and  here,  too,  we  find  a  wonderful  diversity  of 
opinion  among  the  Baptists.  They  all  agree  in  making  im- 
mersion essential  to  baptism,  but  how  to  prove  it  they  know 
not.  Some  will  have  the  Greek  word  to  be  2i  frequentative, 
that  is,  implying  a  repetition  of  the  act  several  times ;  others 
assert  that  it  is  a  diminutive,  that  is,  meaning  less  than  the 
root;  and  others  again  that  it  augments,  or  means  more  than 
the  root.  The  first  opinion  is  older  than  the  second  and 
third.  Dr.  Carson  embraces  the  view  that  the  meaning  of 
hapto  is  diminished  in  haptidzo.  Dr.  Fuller  believes  that  it 
is  inci-eased. 

'^Let  us  try  Dr.  Fuller's  rule.  He  says  that  the  termi- 
nation zo  enforces  rather  than  diminishes  the  meaning  of  a 
word,  and  '  seems  generally  to  denote  the  transferring  to 
another,  or  performing  upon  another,  the  thing  designated.' 
Yery  well ',  let  us  try  the  rule.  On  page  44,  he  says : 
^  Bapto  means  to  dye.^  Then,  of  course,  haptidzo  means 
to  make  one  dye.  This  is  his  rule,  and  sufficiently  absurd 
it  is. 

^^  Dr.  Gale  takes  the  ground  that  the  two  words  are 
exactly  the  same  in  signification.  Therefore,  when  we  prove 
by  Dr.  Carson  that  hapto  means  to  dye,  and  does  not  mean 
mode,  we  add  Dr.  Gale's  testimony,  and  prove  that  haptidzo 
does  not  mean  mode.  Thus  the  Baptist  doctors  destroy 
themselves/' 


166  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^'  Stop,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Tlieopliilus ;  ^'  is  it  possible  that 
sucli  diiFerences  of  opinion  exist  among  the  Baptists  ?" 

''  Indeed  it  is,  Theophilus.  Here  are  the  books.  You  can 
examine  for  yourself." 

'^  I  am  astonished,  sir,  at  the  audacity  of  these  teachers  of 
immersion.  They  assert  over  and  over  again  that  their  sys- 
tem is  as  clearly  established  as  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and 
yet  I  see  that  they  are  compelled  to  deatroy  it,  whilst  they 
are  laboring  to  prove  it !" 

^^It  is  just  so,  Theophilus.  Their  often-repeated  boasts 
of  destroying  Pedobaptist  doctrines  by  the  testimony  of  their 
own  advocates  is  retorted  upon  them  with  tenfold  power. 

'^But  we  return  to  the  subject  in  hand.  Dr.  Gale  gives 
up  the  mode  of  diiyping  in  the  following  language:  ^The 
word  hapti?:o,  perhaps,  does  not  so  necessarily  express  the 
action  of  putting  under  water,  as  in  general  a  thing  be- 
ing in  that  condition,  no  matter  how  it  comes  so,  whether 
it  is  put  into  the  water,  or  the  water  comes  over  it.^  This 
view  he  labors  to  establish,  and,  as  far  as  the  classics  go,  he 
is  very  near  the  truth.  With  a  little  modification  I  am 
willing  to  receive  it. 

^^  My  position  is  this  :  that  hapto  being  used  originally  to 
express  the  act  of  dyeing  without  indicating  the  mode, 
haptidzo  was  used  to  express  the  overwhelming  of  a  person 
or  thing  either  with  or  in  water :  it  being  indifferent  in 
the  first  case  whether  the  dyeing  fluid  was  applied  to  the 
thing  dyed,  or  whether  the  thing  dyed  was  applied  to  the 
fluid ;  so  in  the  last  case  it  was  indifferent  whether  the 
water  was  applied  to  the  object,  or  the  object  to  the 
water :  the  result  is  the  same.  That  the  derivative  in  this 
case  must  mean  either  less  or  more  than  the  primitive  verb, 
is  an  opinion  which  seems  to  me  wholly  without  evidence. 
The  termination  zo  neither  adds  any  thing  to  nor  does  it 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.  167 

take  any  thing  from  the  root,  by  virtue  of  any  rule  known  in 
the  Greek  hmguage.  The  primitive  verb  raino,  for  instance, 
means  to  sprinkle,  rain  upon,  to  bedew,  wet,  etc. ;  and  its 
derivative,  rantidzo,  means  also  to  wet,  sprinkle,  bedew. 
So  also,  the  primitive  verb  Jcatliairo  means  to  cleanse,  purify, 
etc.,  and  the  derivative,  katharidzo,  means  the  same.  These 
are  to  some  extent  analogous  words,  and  prove  conclusively 
that  hajytidzo  neitKer  gains  nor  loses  any  thing  by  virtue  of 
its  final  syllable.  That  there  may  be  particular  instances  in 
which  derivatives  increase  or  diminish  the  meaning  of  their 
roots,  I  do  not  doubt ;  but  that  there  is  any  ride  for  such 
changes,  I  do  not  believe.  The  use  of  the  word  is  the  only 
method  known  to  us  in  any  language  by  which  we  can  as- 
certain its  meaning.  The  use  of  haptidzo,  as  we  have 
already  seen  by  Dr.  Gale's  testimony,  in  the  classic  writers 
does  not  limit  it  to  the  expression  of  mode,  but  condition, 
the  general  sense  being  that  of  overwhelming . 

^' Dr.  Carson,  however,  comes  in  collision. with  his  Baptist 
brother,  and  does  not  hesitate  in  setting  up  his  opinion 
against  the  whole  learned  world.  Hear  his  language : 
'My  position  is,  that  it  (baj^tidzo)  always  signifies  to  dip: 
never  expressing  any  thing  hut  mode.  Now,  as  I  have  ALL 
THE     LEXICOGRAPHERS     AND    COMMENTATORS    AGAINST     ME 

in  this  opinion,  it  will  be  necessary  to  say  a  word  or  two 
with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons.' — Page  55.  A. 
modest  'position,'  truly!" 

'^  Does  Dr.  Carson  say  that  ?  Why,  sir,  I  have  heard 
Baptists  appeal  to  lexicons  as  ultimate  authority,  and  declare 
that  they  are  unanimous  in  their  favor !" 

''  Yes,  I  suppose  you  have,  often.  But  here  are  the 
words  of  the  Bev.  Dr.  Alexander  Carson,  flying  in  the  face 
of  all  the  lexicons,  dictionaries,  and  commentators  who  have 
lived  for  sixteen  hundred  years  past.  And  why  does  he  do 
it  ?     Simply  because  they  will  not  prove  his  position  !     He 


168  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

appeals  to  the  classics,  and  if  lie  meets  a  hard  case,  he  gets 
over  it  by  the  help  of  poetry  and  liyperhole,  or  calmly  sits 
down,  and  says.  Well,  I  don't  know  where  it  is,  but  dip  is 
here  somewhere :  it  must  be  here,  for  I  have  said  so  ! 

^^An  accurate  scholar  would  be  at  a  loss  to  affix  any  modal 
meaning  to  this  word  haptldzo  in  the  classics.  The  Baptists 
bring  up  a  long  array  of  names,  from  Homer  down,  to  sus- 
tain their  favorite  idea  dip.  Nearly  all  the  passages  they 
quote,  however,  only  establish  the  fact  that  plunging,  not 
dipping,  is  the  sense  in  which  the  word  is  sometimes  used. 
Josephus  tells  us  of  a  certain  vessel  which  was  baptized,  and 
the  crew  swam  to  the  shore.  The  vessel  was  sunk,  not  dip- 
ped :  it  was  overwhelmed  by  the  waves.  Aristotle  speaks  of 
a  certain  coast  which  was  baptized  by  the  water  coming  over 
it.  This  was  certainly  not  dipping  the  land  in  the  water, 
but  the  overwhelming  of  the  land  by  the  water.  Here  we 
have  two  examples,  expressing  the  same  general  sense,  but 
still  requiring  two  opposite  modes  of  performance.  In  the 
first  case  the  ship  sank  in  the  water :  in  the  last  the  water 
overflowed  the  land. 

'^  I  might  quote  a  number  of  passages  in  proof  of  my  position, 
but  I  think  it  unnecessary.  Whatever  idea  or  ideas  heathen 
G-reeks  may  have  attached  to  the  word,  it  is  plain  they  knew 
nothing  of  the  Christian  idea  which  belongs  to  it.  To  say 
that  it  means  nothing  but  mode  is  to  say  that  Aristotle,  Plato, 
and  Theocritus  knew  as  much  about  baptism  as  Matthew,  and 
Mark,  and  John.  Unless  the  word  has  some  sacred  mean- 
ing, unless  there  is  a  peculiar  sense  in  which  it  is  to  be  un- 
derstood, it  is  impossible  that  it  should  convey  to  our  minds 
a  distinct  ordinance  or  command  of  Christ.  Nothing  can  be 
plainer  than  this  fact ;  and  yet  upon  this  feature  of  the  sub- 
ject  Baptist  writers  not  only  contradict  each  other,  but  they 
pointedly  contradict  themselves.  Let  me  give  you  an  ex- 
ample.  I  will  quote  from  the  thirty-second  page  of  Dr.  Fuller's 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         169 

book  on  Baptism.  He  says  :  'Another  plea,  sometimes  urged, 
would  be  amusing  if  the  subject  were  not  too  solemn.  It  is 
tliat  haptidzo  has  a  sacred  meaning  ;  that  is  to  say,  it  meant 
immerse  until  Jesus  used  it,  and  then  all  at  once  it  got  to 
mean  something  else.  If  this  absurdity  were  admitted,  it 
would  make  the  Scriptures  utterly  worthless,  since  nobody 
could  know  what  Jesus  meant.'  Here,  you  will  notice,  he 
says  that  this  idea  of  attaching  a  sacred  sense  to  the  word 
would  be  amusing,  if  it  were  not  for  the  solemniiy  of  the 
subject.  The  Doctor,  however,  while  he  does  not  feel  will- 
ing to  laugli  at  what  he  is  pleased  to  term  'ridiculous 
sophistry,'  does  not  hesitate  to  brand  it  as  an  ^impiefi/,  which 
ought  to  fill  "a  pious  mind  with  liorror  V  To  what  extent 
ignorance  ought  to  shield  a  man  of  great  pretensions  from 
rebuke,  I  am  not  able  to  say,  but  I  think  it  ought  not  to  be 
considered  a  just  excuse  for  condemning  his  own  words. 
Let  us  hear  this  Doctor  on  page  209  :  '  Properly  administered, 
baptism  is  a  most  speaking  ordinance.  It  is  beautifully  em- 
blematical of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection,  and  of  our  own 
dying  unto  sin,  and  rising  to  a  new  life  !'  Did  haptidzo 
represent  the  death  and  burial  of  Christ  a  thousand  years  be- 
fore he  was  born  ?  Did  it  typify  our  death  and  rising  again, 
when  it  was  used  by  heathen  writers  ?  If  not,  then  it  has 
certainly  acquired  this  meaning,  and  it  must,  therefore,  be 
sacred,  inasmuch  as  the  facts  which  it  represents  are  sacred. 
The  word  '  signifies  to  immerse,  and  it  has  no  other  mean- 
ing.' So  says  Dr.  Fuller.  Yet  at  the  same  time  it  is  a 
beautiful  emblem  of  Christ's  death  and  resurrection  !  So 
says  Dr.  Fuller.  At  the  same  time,  too,  it  has  no  sacred 
meaning !  So,  also,  says  Dr.  Fuller.  Now,  this  emblemati- 
cal sense  was  either  always  in  the  word,  before  it  became  the 
name  of  an  ordinance,  or  else  it  has  acquired  it  since.  If  it 
has  acquired  it,  what  is  this  but  a  new  and  sacred  meaning 
to  a  heathen  word  ?  Dr.  Fuller  admits  that  this  word  alone 
8 


170  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

is  used  iu  the  New  Testament  to  designate  baptism,  but  still, 
at  one  moment,  be  affirms  that  it  means  no  more  in  Matthew 
than  it  does  in  Homer,  while  at  another  he  gives  it  a  meaning 
that  no  heathen  ever  dreamed  of.  Such  is  the  consistency  of 
this  assuming  writer.  One  other  of  his  numerous  absurdities 
I  will  notice.  Endeavoring  to  prove  that  words  have  7io 
New  Testament  meaning,  other  than  the  classical  sense,  he 
says  that  Trvevjia,  (^pneuma,~)  which  every  Greek  scholar  knows 
originally  meant  wind,  ^ meant  s^nrit  when  Christ  used  it.' 
You  will  recollect  that  he  contends  a  word  cannot  mean  more 
than  one  thing :  how,  then,  could  the  word  loneuma  mean 
spirit  when  Christ  used  it  ?  It  is  folly  to  deny  that  it  was  or- 
dinarily used  and  understood  to  mean  wind  in  the  days  of 
our  Saviour.  But  Dr.  Fuller  says  it  meant  spirit.  Christ 
paid  to  Nicodemus,  'The  icind  (jrvevfjia)  bloweth  where  it 
listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not 
tell  whence  it  cometh  nor  whither  it  goeth ;  so  is  every  one 
that  is  born  of  the  Spirit,'  (livevim.)  Dr.  Fuller  would 
have  it  read,  '  The  Spirit  bloweth  where  it  listeth,'  or,  'so  is 
every  one  that  is  born  of  the  icind  !'  He  must  reject  one  of 
the  two  meanings  :  he  must  make  nonsense  of  the  passage, 
or  else  admit  that  a  word  may  have  two  meanings.  Yet  he 
tells  us  that  it  is  impiety,  sophistry,  and  folly  to  affirm  such 
a  thing  !     What  marvellous  critics  these  Baptists  make  V 

"  This  Dr.  Fuller  stands  high  among  the  Baptists,  Mr. 
Mason,"  said  Theophilus;  "but  really  I  would  be  ashamed 
of  such  blunders  as  he  appears  to  make.     Is  he  a  scholar?" 

"  I  do  not  know,  Theophilus.  Every  Baptist  preacher  as- 
serts that  he  understands  the  word  hajytidzo,  and  although 
he  cannot  put  a  dozen  sentences  together  without  violating 
the  rules  of  grammar,  he  becomes,  ex  officio,  a  critic  in  the 
G-reek  language.  As  for  Dr.  Fuller,  I  am  inclined  to  the  be- 
lief, expressed  by  himself,  that  'incurable  prejudices  are 
often  found  in  men  of  erudition,  whose  piety  we  see  and  ad- 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  171 

mire  in  many  things/  Tliis  is  tlie  answer  which  he  gives 
to  the  question,  '■  Why  do  Pedobaptists  adhere  to  their  opin- 
ions on  the  subject  of  baptism?'  It  is  the  most  charitable 
solution  of  his  own  extravagant  assertions  and  unproved 
positions. 

"  But  enough  of  Dr.  Fuller  and  his  errors.  I  have  said, 
and  it  is  admitted  by  Dr.  Carson,  that  the  use  of  a  word, 
which  may  be  then  current,  is  the  only  standard  by  which 
we  can  arrive  at  its  meaning.  What  would  you  think  of  a 
man  who  would  call  you  a  candid  villain,  Theophilus?" 

'^  Why,  that  he  either  did  not  understand  English,  or  else 
intended  to  insult  me." 

'^  That  would  be  a  fair  inference,  either  way,  provided  you 
mean  modern  English,  Theophilus.  But  you  must  recollect 
that  villain  originally  meant  a  tenant,  one  who  held  land  by 
a  servile  tenure.  The  two  classes  of  English  villeins  are 
clearly  described,  and  their  rights  and  duties  pointed  out,  in 
Blackstone's  Commentaries.  As  for  the  word  candid,  you  know 
it  is  from  the  Latin  candidus,  and  primarily  meant  white, 
so  that  a  candid  villain  was  only  a  white  tenant  a  few  hun- 
dred years  ago.  So,  also,  if  you  were  called  a  franh  man, 
you  would  not  now  understand  that  you  were  considered  a 
Frenchman.  Yet  the  word  frank  was  once  only  used  in 
this  sense.  The  word  scruj)le,  from  the  Latin,  once  meant  a 
little  pebble,  which  crept  into  the  sandals  of  the  soldiers  and 
caused  them  to  limp  :  now  it  means  a  doubt  or  hesitation. 
The  word  hoor  originally  meant  a  farmer;  a  varlet 'was  a 
servant,  only;  a  churl  was  a  strong/  man ;  but  now,  all  these 
terms  are  opprobrious  epithets.  So,  also,  the  English  word 
let,  originally  meant  to  hinder :  now  it  means  to  permit. 
Prevent  once  meant  to  go  before,  for  the  purpose  of  assisting : 
now  it  means  to  go  before  for  the  purpose  of  hindering. 
This  last  word  has  changed  its  meaning  within  three  cen 
turies  past,   as  also  has  the  word  let,  for  we  find  both  of 


172  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

tliem  used  in  tlie  English  Bible  in"  their  primary  sense,  and 
many  writers  of  the  last  century  used  prevent  in  its  original 
sense. '^ 

"I  remember  reading  a  valuable  little  work  by  Mr. 
Trench,  on  the  study  of  words,  which  mentions  some  of 
these  terms.  But  do  you  think  the  word  haptize  has 
changed  its  meaning,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

"  No,  Theophilus,  I  was  only  adducing  these  examples  to 
show  you  how  unreasonably  Baptist  critics  argue  upon  the 
subject  of  baptism.  The  ordinance  of  Christ,  in  its  funda- 
mental character,  has  not  changed,  of  course.  Still,  in 
different  ages,  the  modes  of  its  administration  have  changed. 
In  accordance  with  the  views  of  Christian  teachers,  in 
diiferent  ages,  certain  modes,  more  or  less  significant  of  a 
particular  theory,  have  been  customary.  This  diversity  of 
practice,  as  to  the  mode,  reaches  back  to  the  very  first  ages 
of  the  Church,  after  the  apostolic  times.  Yet  there  is  not 
a  shadow  of  proof  that  the  mode  in  use  was  considered  essen- 
tial to  the  ordinance,  disallowing  and  repudiating  all  others, 
as  do  our  Baptist  friends.  When  we  come  to  examine  the 
history  of  the  ordinance,  I  shall  show  you  where  their  i\\Qory 
originated,  and  icho  was  the  author  of  it.^' 

'^  0,  you  mean  to  trace  it  to  Munzer  and  Buccold,  do 
you  ?     The  Baptists  deny  their  German  origin." 

<^  No  matter  what  they  deny,  Theophilus,  I  will  bring  the 
authorities,  which  cannot  be  controverted.  I  will  show  you, 
however,  their  theory  in  existence  before  the  time  of  the 
German  Anabaptists,  although  they  were  the  modern  re- 
vivers of  it. 

^^But  we  must  keep  to  the  matter  in  hand  now.  The 
only  way  in  which  we  can  arrive  at  a  definite  idea  of  the 
meaning  of  [3anrL^(o  in  the  New  Testament,  is  to  ascertain 
the  design  of  the  ordinance.  Upon  this  point  an  error  will 
mislead  us.     I   believe   the  Baptists   generally   agree   that 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  173 

baptism  is  the  door  into  the  Cliurcli,  and  that  it  is  an  em- 
blem of  the  death,  burial^  and  resurrection  of  Christ,  sym- 
bolizing our  death  to  sin,  and  rising  again  to  a  life  of  holi- 
ness. This  is,  I  believe,  their  idea  of  the  design  which 
Christ  had  in  view  when  he  gave  the  commandment.  They 
do  not,  however,  pretend  that  there  is  any  positive  explana- 
tion of  this  symbol  in  the  Bible.  The  nearest  approach  to 
it  is  a  remark  made  by  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  Romans, 
where  he  speaks  of  a  burial  with  Christ  in  baptism,  and  a 
rising  again  to  a  new  life.  This  is  a  famous  text  with 
immersionists,  and  I  shall  examine  it  in  detail  at  the  proper 
time.  We  will  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  account  given 
by  the  Evangelists  of  the  baptism  which  John  administered 
— its  design  and  mode.  You  may  take  the  Bible,  and  look 
over  the  third  chapter  of  Matthew,  whilst  I  look  over  the 
G-reek  Testament.'^ 

^'  That  suits  my  views  exactly,"  said  Theophilus,  "  for  I 
am  confident  that  this  question  ought  to  be  settled  alone  by 
Bible  testimony." 

^'  The  first  thing  that  strikes  our  attention  is  the  name 
which  was  given  to  John,  that  is  6  (iairriorrig,  the  Baptist. 
^  In  those  days  came  John  the  Baptist.'  The  Grreek  word, 
as  defined  by  the  lexicons,  means  a  di/er,  or  one  that  dips. 
This  was  its  classieal  meaning,  but  it  is  very  evident  that  he 
was  not  a  dyer ;  therefore  our  Baptist  friends  say  he  was  a 
dipper,  and  if  the  word  had  been  translated,  it  would  read 
John  the  Dij>per.  But  it  is  still  a  difficult  matter  to  make 
sense  of  the  passage  with  this  definition.  Mark  says,  ac- 
cording to  this  view,  ^  John  did  dip  in  the  wilderness,  and 
preach  the  dipyping  of  repentance  for  the  remission  of  sins.' 
If  we  understand  the  words  literally,  the  wilderness  was  the 
element  into  which  he  dipped.  But  this  is  absurd.  If 
there  had  been  any  baptizers  before  John,  why  was  he  dis- 
tinguished by  that  peculiar  name?     Why  was  he  selected 


174  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

as  tlie  only  man  to  wliom  tlie  title  was  given  ?  It  is  very 
evident,  tlien,  tliat  whatever  may  have  been  the  mode  of 
the  baptism  which  he  administered,  there  was  something 
new,  and  hitherto  unexplained,  in  the  design,  of  his  baptism. 
Now  the  question  occurs.  Did  John  establish  a  Church  ? 
If  so,  who  were  the  members  of  it  ?  Where  is  it  stated  in 
the  Bible  that  such  a  Church  was  established  by  him  ?  If 
there  is  no  proof  that  there  was  such  a  Church,  his  baptism 
could  not  be  a  door.  Another  remarkable  fact  in  connection 
with  this  part  of  our  inquiry  is,  that  there  is  no  reason  to 
believe,  from  the  sacred  text,  that  any  one  received  the 
remission  of  his  sins  in  consequence  of  this  baptism. 
Though  it  is  called  a  baptism  of  repentance  unto  remission 
of  sins,  and  the  people  are  plainly  said  to  have  confessed 
their  sins,  it  is  not  said  that  any  one  of  them  was  pardoned, 
that  there  was  any  change  of  heart  or  spiritual  work 
wrought  in  the  hearts  of  his  disciples,  beyond  a  conviction 
of  sin,  and  personal  necessity  of  a  Saviour.  This  seems  to 
have  been  the  extent  of  John's  dispensation.  It  was  a  pre- 
paratory work,  for  which  he  was  divinely  commissioned,  and 
at  the  proper  time  he  entered  upon  the  discharge  of  his 
duties.  John  was  himself  the  subject  of  prophecy,  for  in 
the  third  chapter  of  Malachi  we  read  :  ^  Behold,  I  will  send 
my  messenger,  and  he  shall  prepare  the  way  before  me;  and 
the  Lord,  whom  ye  seek,  shall  suddenly  come  to  his  temple.^ 
Accordingly  John  opens  his  message  with  these  words : 
^  Repent  ye,  for  the  kingdom  of  heaven  is  at  hand.'  The 
Pharisees  sent  to  him  and  inquired  if  he  was  the  Christ,  and 
upon  his  declaring  that  he  was  not,  they  asked :  '  Why 
haptizest  thou,  then,  if  thou  be  not  that  Christ,  nor  Elias, 
neither  that  prophet  V  From  this  text  it  is  plain  that  the 
Jews  expected  Christ  would  baptize  when  he  came ;  where, 
then,  did  they  receive  this  idea  ?  Did  they  not  receive  it 
from  such  passages  as  the  thirty-sixth  of  Ezekiel,  ^  Then  will 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  175 

I  sprinJdc  dean  icater  ujjon  you,  and  yc  shall  he  dean?* 
Here  the  cleansing  of  the  people  is  distinctly  declared  to  be 
oue  of  the  blessings  of  Christ's  kingdom.  But  in  the  chap- 
ter which  I  have  quoted  from  Malachi  it  is  said  that  the 
Lord  '  shall  sit  as  a  refiner  and  purifier  of  silver,  and  he 
shall  purify  the  sons  of  Levi,  and  purge  them  as  gold  and 
silver.'  In  the  third  chapter  of  John  we  read  the  following 
statement :  '  Then  there  arose  a  question  between  some  of 
John's  disciples  and  the  Jews,  about  purifying,  and  they 
came  unto  John,  and  said  unto  him,  Eabbi,  he  that  was  with 
thee  beyond  Jordan,  to  whom  thou  barest  witness,  behold, 
the  same  haptizeth,  and  all  'men  come  unto  him/  Here,  a 
question  about  purifying  is  stated  to  be  a  question  about 
baptizing,  showing  very  forcibly  that  a  purification  of  the 
subject  was  synonymous  in  their  minds  with  the  baptizing 
of  him. 

^'  From  these  scriptural  facts,  I  think  we  may  draw  the 
following  conclusions  :  1.  Water  was  used  among  the  Jews 
as  the  emblem  of  purification.  2.  They  expected  the 
Messiah  to  purify  the  hearts  of  the  people,  and  that  this 
work  would  be  accomplished  through  an  outward,  visible 
ordinance.  3.  Therefore  they  expected  Christ  to  baptize. 
Consequently  they  supposed  John  to  be  the  Christ,  until  he 
denied  it.  But  John,  to  show  them  that  the  ceremonial 
law,  in  which  they  rested,  and  by  which  they  expected  to  be 
justified,  was  not  competent  to  the  cleansing  of  their  hearts 
from  sin,  declared  to  them  that  he  baptized  with  water,  but 
that  the  one  who  should  follow  him  would  baptize  with  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  with  fire.  As  if  he  had  said.  This  baptism 
which  I  administer  is  an  outward  work  only,  and  is  simply 
typical  of  that  work  which  the  Messiah  shall  perform  in 
your  hearts  by  the  operation  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

''  Notwithstanding  the  Jews  had  practiced  a  sort  of  bap- 
tism, by  which,  in  conjunction  with  circumcision,  proselytes 


176  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

were  brought  under  the  covenant  of  Israel,  this  baptism  of 
John  was  wholly  new  to  them,  in  the  manner  of  its  admin- 
istration, the  suhjects  of  it,  and  the  design  of  it.  It  was 
new  to  them  in  its  manner,  because  it  id  as  performed  upon 
the  subjects  by  an  administrator.  No  priest  had  ever  bap- 
tized a  proselyte;  on  the  contrary,  the  proselyte  in  every 
case  baptized  himself.  Hence  we  have  the  reason  why 
John  was  called  the  baptizer — simply  because  he  baptized 
his  subjects.  In  the  next  place,  the  subjects  of  this  baptism 
were  not  proselytes,  they  were  native  Jews;  they  did  not 
make  any  change  in  jtheir  faith — they  had  always  believed 
that  the  Messiah  was  to  come,  and  John  declared  to  them 
that  he  was  at  that  time  among  them,  and  would  be  made 
manifest.  Confessing  their  sins,  therefore,  they  received 
baptism  as  a  sign  of  regeneration,  and  a  seal  of  their  faith  in 
the  refiner  and  purifier  of  the  heart,  the  Messiah,  who  was 
shortly  to  be  revealed.  In  the  last  place,  it  was  new  to 
them,  in  that  it  was  declared  to  be  only  a  symbol,  a  type, 
not  the  substance,  not  the  cleansing  agent,  but  only  repre- 
sentative of  the  truly  purifying  power.  They  had  lost  sight 
of  the  spiritual  meaning  of  nearly  all  their  ceremonial  ob- 
servances, and,  as  a  people,  looked  for  justification  in  the 
law  :  John's  ministry,  therefore,  was  designed  to  bring  them 
back  to  the  true  design  of  the  Mosaic  law,  and  in  the  ordi- 
nance which  he  administered  he  distinctly  showed  them 
that  all  mere  physical  acts  do  not  purify  the  heart. 

'^  John  tells  us  himself  why  he  baptized :  'And  I  knew 
him  not;  but  that  he  should  be  made  manifest  to  Israel, 
THEREFORE  am,  I  come  baptizing  with  water. ^  This  was  the 
grand  object  of  John's  ministry,  to  make  Christ  manifest  to 
Israel.  This  was  done  in  two  ways.  1.  By  shoicing  the 
abolition  of  the  ceremonial  laio.  By  the  confession  of  their 
sins,  the  people  acknowledged  that  their  sacrifices  and 
ofi"erings  had  not  cleansed  their  hearts.     In  baptizing  them, 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  177 

Jolin  positively  affirmed  that  water  could  not  cleanse  them 
from  sin ;  and  thus  the  insufficiency  of  Moses'  law  being  con- 
fessed by  the  people,  and  the  inadequacy  of  any  mere  cere- 
mony being  asserted  by  John,  the  abrogation  of  all  ceremo- 
nial rites  as  the  means  of  salvation  was  clearly  indicated. 
2,  Christ  was  made  manifest  personally,  hy  his  oion  baptism 
at  the  hands  of  John.  He  was  thus  declared  to  be  the 
Anointed,  the  Baptizer,  who,  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  would  purify  the  people  effectually  from  their  sins. 
Thus  he  was  set  apart  to  be  for  ever  the  High  Priest,  who, 
after  his  ministrations  on  earth,  should  enter  the  Holy  of 
Holies,  and  for  ever  remain  as  the  intercessor  and  advocate 
of  all  who  come  to  God  through  him,  '  ever  living  to  make 
intercession.' 

'^  Here,  then,  we  have  a  reasonable,  consistent  explana- 
tion of  the  design  of  the  baptism  of  John,  and  I  think  a 
candid  examination  of  all  the  passages  in  the  Bible  relating 
to  the  subject  will  confirm  all  that  I  have  said.'' 

"I  am  truly  glad,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  " ihn,t 
you  have  explained  this  subject  so  satisfactorily.  I  have 
always  been  in  doubt  about  the  object  of  John's  baptism; 
but  now  I  think  the  whole  matter  is  perfectly  plain.  I  see 
now  zohi/  there  was  a  difference  between  this  and  the 
Christian  baptism ;  I  see  why  it  is  called  a  baptism  of 
repejitance :  because  their  acknowledgment  of  sin  was 
equivalent  to  an  acknowledgment  that  their  Jewish  types 
were  only  representative,  and  after  the  strictest  performance 
left  them  still  in  sin.  I  see  ivhythe  baptism  was  performed, 
both  to  show  the  inadequacy  of  their  rites,  and  to  point  out 
the  perfect  competency  of  the  healing  agent.  I  see  also 
ivhi/  Jesus  was  baptized,  which  I  never  could  learn  before. 
I  am  indeed  thankful  that  you  have  taken  the  trouble  to  give 
me  this  information.  Still,  however,  there  is  one  more  diffi- 
culty to  be  solved — the  mode  of  John's  baptism;  what  was  it  ?" 
8* 


178  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^^  Well,  Theoplnlus,  I  will  try  to  throw  some  light  upon 
that  subject,  too.  You  know  that  the  Baptists  contend,  and 
they  quote  Pedobaptist  writers  to  support  them,  that  the 
Jewish  proselyte  baptism  was  immersion,  and  therefore  that 
was  the  mode  which  John  practiced.  The  Jewish  proselyte 
baptism  was  an  outward  act,  indicative  of  a  change  of  state 
or  allegiance  from  the  worship  of  false  gods,  heathen  deities, 
to  the  worship  of  the  only  true  Grod.  It  is  true  that  the 
act  was  immersion  in  water;  but  it  was  not  dqtpmg  in 
water.  In  the  case  of  the  adult  proselyte  there  was  no 
administrator — the  man  immersed  himself.  Here,  then, 
were  two  points  of  difference.  The  Jews  were  not  heathen 
idolaters  :  their  allegiance  or  religious  accountability  was  not 
affected  by  their  baptism.  They  did  not  change  one  object 
of  worship  for  another — they  only  acknowledged  the  unfit- 
ness of  certain  means  of  obtaining  the  favor  of  God,  by 
embracing  the  substance  which  had  been  constantly  sha- 
dowed forth  in  their  law.  And  they  were  baptized  by 
John ;  not  by  themselves.  These  differences  are  obvious. 
It  was,  indeed,  imjjossihle  that  a  Jeio  should  receive  prose- 
lyte baptism.  If,  then,  heathens  who  embraced  the  true 
religion  immersed  themselves,  does  it  follow  that  John 
immersed  the  Jews  ?  Certainly  not.  The  mode  of  his 
baptism  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  mode  of  initiat- 
ing a  proselyte.  Another  matter  must  determine  the 
particular  act  which  John  performed  in  baptizing.  This  act 
must  be  determined  by  considering  the  mode  of  the  spiritual 
baptism,  for  there  must  always  be  a  resemblance  between  the 
sign  and  the  thing  signified.  Now,  I  have  said  that  John's 
ordinance  was  a  sign  of  regeneration,  and  a  seal  of  faith  in 
a  Christ  to  come.  The  emblematical  uses  of  water  in  the 
purifications  of  the  law,  all  distinctly  pointed  out  the  cleans- 
ing agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit;  and  there  is  not  a  solitary 
instance  in  the  Bible  in  which  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  179 

Spirit  is  said  to  be  an  immersion.  We  read  in  Joel^  tliat 
the  Spirit  sliall  he  jwin^cd  out ;  we  hear  Peter  declaring  that 
the  prophecy  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pentecost;  and  we 
hear  Paul,  in  his  letter  to  the  Hebrews,  talking  of  their 
having  their  hearts  sprinhhd  from  an  evil  conscience ;  but 
in  no  one  instance  are  we  told  that  our  hearts  are  immersed 
in  the  Holy  Spirit.  No  such  form  of  speech  is  used;  no 
Buch  mode  alluded  to,  in  reference  to  the  cleansing  of  the 
heart  from  the  defilements  of  sin.  If,  then,  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  is  never  said  to  be  an  immersion ,  water  bap- 
tism, to  represent  the  spiritual  work,  must  not  be  immersion. 
This  follows^  as  a  matter  of  course,  and  the  only  ground  of 
exception  must  be  as  to  the  thing  signified  in  baptism. 
This,  our  Baptist  friends  say,  is  not  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  but  the  death,  hurled,  and  resurrection  of  Christ. 
At  the  same  time,  some  of  them  stoutly  contend  that  the 
baptism  of  John  and  the  Christian  ordinance  are  identical. 
If  this  be  true,  John  was  doubtless  ignorant  of  it,  as  were 
all  the  apostles,  for  they  give  us  not  a  remote  hint  of  such 
identity,  nor  of  the  death,  burial,  and  resurrection,  which 
are  said  to  be  plainly  represented  in  the  ordinance.  Indeed, 
it  is  absurd  to  say  that  John  immersed  persons  in  token  of 
the  death  of  Christ  before  John  himself  knew  who  the 
Christ  was.  Add  to  this  the  absurdity  of  immersing  Christ, 
in  representation  of  his  own  death,  and  thus  admitting  him 
through  the  door  into  his  own  Church,  and  we  have 
absurdities  enough  to  destroy  any  proposition  in  logic. 
Unless  baptism  is  allowed  to  be  something  beside  and  even 
different  from  the  door  of  the  Church,  these  difficulties  can- 
not be  avoided. 

^^  We  cannot  admit  that  John's  baptism  was  typical  of 
Christ's  death  for  many  other  reasons,  the  strongest  of 
which  is  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  do  not  say  so  ;  and  nothin 
can  be  found  from  which  any  such  inference  can  be  drawn  j 


cr 


180 

on  tlie  contrary,  Paul  makes,  in  the  nineteenth  of  Acts,  the 
same  distinction  which  John  made  himself ;  and  our  Lord, 
a  short  time  previous  to  his  ascension,  confirmed  the  lan- 
guage of  John,  and  authorized  the  act  of  Paul.  Against 
such  testimony  no  man  can  place  his  vague  fancies. 

"  But  I  perceive,  Theophilus,  that  it  is  time  for  us  to  dis- 
miss. We  shall  meet  here  again  to-morrow  night,  and  con- 
tinue this  branch  of  the  subject.'* 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  181 


CHAPTER    Xiy. 

A  TEST  QUESTION. 

The  Sabbath  was  a  calm,  beautiful  day,  and  the  worship- 
pers at  the  sanctuary  of  Grod  were  many.  The  Rev.  Mr. 
Williams,  the  local  preacher,  to  whom  allusion  has  before 
been  made,  occupied  the  pulpit  of  the  Methodist  church, 
and  preached  in  demonstration  of  the  Spirit  and  in  power. 
He  was  in  the  home  of  his  youth ;  the  spot  to  which  his 
heart  had  often  turned  when  in  a  distant  land ;  and  the 
well-remembered  forms  of  those  with  whom  he  united  at  the 
throne  of  grace  had  often  visited  him  in  his  moments  of 
gloom  and  dejection.  Once  more  he  was  with  them,  look- 
ing upon  the  bright  faces  of  the  happy  children,  and  gazing 
upon  the  countenances  of  friends  who  had  loved  and 
cherished  him  in  his  old  home. 

The  many  touching  allusions  to  the  beloved  dead  who 
once  worshipped  there,  and  the  glorious  prospect  of  reunion 
in  that  land  where  death  can  never  come,  and  where  separa- 
tion will  be  known  no  more,  produced  a  deep  sensation  in 
the  congregation.  At  the  close  of  the  sermon,  Mr.  Williams 
stated  that  he  had  been  requested  by  the  pastor  to  lead  in 
the  administration  of  the  Lord's  supper.  In  doing  so  he 
had  but  one  remark  to  make.  The  table  which  was  spread 
before  them  was  the  Lord's  table;  it  belonged  to  no  denomi- 
nation. In  approaching  it  with  humble  hearts,  he  invited 
all  the  children  of   God,   all  the   redeemed   of  Jesus,  by 


182  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

whatever  name  they  might  be  called,  to  unite  with  him. 
And  whilst  they  ate  the  bread  and  drank  the  wine,  in  token 
of  a  common  Saviour's  sufferings  and  death,  he  exhorted 
them  to  look  forward,  with  an  eye  of  faith,  to  that  perpetual 
feast  in  which  they  should  be  allowed  to  drink  the  new 
wine  in  the  kingdom  of  heaven. 

It  was  a  solemn  season.  That  sorrow,  mingled  with  joy, 
which  the  humble  Christian  ever  feels  when  contemplating 
the  tragedy  of  the  crucifixion,  thrilled  every  heart  that  re- 
ceived in  the  meekness  of  faith  the  solemn  testimonials  of 
a  Saviour's  love.  The  audible  thanksgivings  of  the  commu- 
nicants, mingled  with  the  acknowledgments  of  unworthiness, 
ascended  to  the  heavenly  hills,  and  clouds  of  mercy  de- 
scended in  refreshing  showers  to  many  souls. 

Among  those  who  knelt  at  the  altar  was  the  mother  of 
Mr.  Williams,  a  lady  advanced  in  years,  with  trembling 
limbs  and  feeble  voice,  yet  possessing  a  heart  upon  whose 
altar  burned  the  fire  of  devotion.  She  received  the  em- 
blems of  the  broken  body  and  shed  blood,  and  lifting  up  her 
face  towards  heaven,  thanked  the  Lord  of  life  and  glory 
for  his  condescending  mercy.  From  her  own  son's  hands 
she  received  the  symbols,  and  she  felt  that  the  privilege  was 
a  source  of  joy  to  her  widowed  heart. 

Mr.  Williams  preached  again  at  night,  and  the  services  of 
the  day  closed  with  undoubted  evidences  of  usefulness  and 
profit.  Early  on  Monday  morning,  however,  tlie  study  of 
I\Ir.  Ellis  was  filled  with  an  apparently  busy  company.  We 
shall  conduct  the  reader  thither. 

'•'■  I  told  you  how  it  would  be,'^  said  Deacon  Smith,  '■'■  this 
u.pstart  of  a  Methodist  preacher  has  enticed  his  mother  up  to 
commune  with  the  Methodists.     I  was  there.     I  saw  it  all.'^ 

"  It  is  unfortunately  true,  brethren,"  said  Mr.  Ellis )  ^'  Sis- 
ter Williams  has  been  guilty  of  a  gross  violation  of  church 
order.'' 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  183 

"  Slie  lias  (lone  precisely  as  slie  said  she  would  do/^  re- 
joined Mr.  Fleming,  '^  and  /  say  that  1  cannot  find  it  in  my 
heart  to  blame  her  for  it.'^ 

"  Nor  I,  either/'  added  Mr.  Barbour  :  ''  had  I  been  in  her 
place,  no  power  on  earth  should  have  prevented  me  from 
communing  with  my  own  child." 

'^  Perhaps  you  will  try  the  experiment,''  said  Mr.  Ellis ; 
'^  and  if  so,  you  will  see  what  will  become  of  you." 

^'  If  I  never  commit  a  greater  sin  than  that.  Brother  Ellis," 
replied  the  young  man,  "I  will  never  go  down  sorrowing  to 
]iiy  grave  !" 

"But  you  will  go  out  of  the  Baptist  Church  I"  ex- 
claimed Mr.  Ellis. 

"Perhaps  so;  and  peradventure  those  who  would  put  me 
out  might  eventually  find  themselves  excluded  from  a  hcttp.r 
Church,  where  all  the  children  of  the  kingdom  sit  down 
with  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob." 

"Come,  brethren,"  said  Mr.  Newton,  "there  is  no  place 
for  such  retorts  here.  We  have  a  grave  and  important  fact 
before  us.  One  of  our  most  worthy,  respected  Church- 
members  has  publicly  violated  the  established  rules  of  our 
Church.  What  are  we  to  do  with  her?  That  is  the 
question." 

"  What  can  we  do  with  her,  but  bring  her  up  before  the 
Church  for  trial  ?"  asked  Deacon  Smith.  "  If  we  allow  this 
case  to  pass,  others  will  occur,  and  no  one  knows  what  the 
end  might  be." 

"  It  might  end  in  cutting  us  loose  from  those  manacles  of 
bigotry  which  have  subjected  us  to  the  opposition  of  the 
Christian  world,"  said  Mr.  Barbour. 

"  There  is  no  Christian  world  outside  of  the  Baptist 
Church  !"  exclaimed  Deacon  Smith ;  "  and  whoever  says 
there  is,  is  not  a  true  Baptist  1"  The  Deacon's  voice  be- 
trayed great  excitement. 


184  THEOPHILUS    WALTONj     OR, 

^'Verily,  ^ye  are  the  people,  and  wisdom  will  die  with 
you/  "  replied  Mr.  Barbour. 

''Brethren/'  said  Mr.  Newton,  "I  beg  of  you,  for  my 
sake,  for  Christ's  sake,  to  stop.  You  pain  me  by  such  con- 
versation. It  is  evident  that  Sister  Williams  has  done  wrong  : 
if  she  will  not  publicly  acknowledge  that  wrong,  much  as  it 
grieves  me,  I  feel  that  our  duty  requires  her  expulsion." 

''  You  are  rio^ht,  brother  Newton/'  said  the  Deacon : 
"  there  is  no  use  to  mince  the  matter.  The  case  must  come 
up.     It  must  be  tried.'' 

''Do  you  charge  her  with  the  oifence  ?"  asked  Mr.  Ellis. 

"  To  be  sure  I  do,  for  I  saw  her  commit  it  with  my  own 
eyes,"  replied  the  Deacon. 

"  We  can  hardly  let  you  be  accuser  and  witness  both, 
Brother  Smith/'  remarked  Mr.  Ellis.  "Did  anyone  else 
see  her  ?" 

"Yes;  there  were  two  other  members  of  our  Church 
there." 

"  Will  they  testify  ?" 

"  Of  course  they  will.  How  can  they  help  it  ?  They 
told  me  to  bring  up  the  case,  and  they  would  be  ready." 

"Then  we  must  attend  to  it,"  said  the  pastor.  "Next 
Saturday  is  our  monthly  meeting.  Shall  we  have  the  trial 
then  ?" 

"The  sooner  the  better,"  replied  the  Deacon. 

"  Well,  let  it  be  so  understood,  then.  But  see  here,  breth- 
ren," continued  Mr.  Ellis,  "  this  is  a  family  affair  :  be  careful 
not  to  speak  of  it  outside.  I  would  not  have  that  Method- 
ist circuit-rider  to  witness  the  trial,  for — a  year's  salary !" 

The  party  continued  in  conversation  a  considerable  time, 
after  which  they  dispersed. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  185 


CHAPTER   XY. 

CARRIE    mason's    REVIEW CONTINUED. 

On  Tuesday  afternoou,  tlie  place  of  meeting  at  Mr. 
Riley's  was  very  nearly  filled;  as  it  was  understood  that  Miss 
Mason  intended  to  continue  her  examination  of  Theodosia 
Ernest's  witnesses,  according  to  appointment.  Several  per- 
sons were  present  this  afternoon  for  the  first  time. 

^^We  are  anxious  that  you  should  begin,  Miss  Carrie/' 
said  Mr.  Price.  "  I  think  you  have  a  difficult  task  before 
you,  and  the  sooner  you  commence  it,  the  more  time  you  will 
have  to  accomplish  it.'' 

^'Indeed!  Mr.  Price,"  said  Carrie;  ^^and  you  think  I 
have  a  difficult  task  before  me,  do  you  ?  In  what  respect 
is  it  so  difficult  ?" 

"  Why,  Miss  Carrie/'  replied  Mr.  Price,  "  I  have  been 
looking  over  the  book  myself,  and  I  do  not  see  how  you  are 
to  avoid  the  testimony  of  such  men  as  Dr.  Chalmers,  Martin 
Luther,  and  John  Wesley.  They  give  pretty  strong  evi- 
dence in  favor  of  immersion." 

'^Well,  Mr.  Price,"  responded  Carrie,  ^^we  shall  see  di- 
rectly what  the  testimony  is  worth.  I  believe  it  is  a  rule  in 
courts  of  justice  that  a  witness  can  give  his  testimony  first, 
in  the  main  examination,  and  then  the  opposing  counsel  has 
the  right  to  cross-examine  him.     Am  I  correct  ?" 

^'  Certainly,  Miss  Mason,"  replied  Mr.  Price ;  "  we  must 
receive  all  of  a  witness's  testimony,  or  none.  Both  sides 
have  the  right  to  cross-examine." 


186  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^' Yery  well,  then.  We  have  seen  Mr.  Barnes's  testimony 
set  aside,  whatever  it  may  amount  to.  We  have  detected 
two  blunders  in  his  criticisms,  and  therefore  wish  to  use  the 
witness  no  further.  The  next  one  brought  forward  by  Mr. 
Percy  is  Dr.  Macknight.  The  testimony  of  this  witness  is 
that  Paul,  the  apostle,  in  the  sixth  chapter  of  Romans, 
when  he  speaks  of  being  '  buried  with  Christ  in  baptism,' 
alludes  to  baptism  by  immersion.  This  is  the  amount  of  Dr. 
Macknight's  testimony;  and  so  far,  we  admit,  the  testimony 
is  in  favor  of  the  Baptists.  But  this  is  no  more  than  many 
others  have  done,  who  did  not  therefore  abandon  baptism  by 
aifusion.  Now,  suppose  we  interrogate  the  witness  by  way 
of  cross-examination.  You  believe  that  the  word  hcq^tidzo 
in  Greek  means  to  immerse,  do  you  ?  I  certainly  do,  says 
the  Doctor  in  his  Notes  on  the  Epistles.  Well,  do  you  be- 
lieve that  it  means  nothing  else,  Doctor  ?  that's  the  question. 
And  here  we  are  answered  by  the  facts  of  the  case.  Mac- 
knight was  a  Scotch  Presbyterian,  belonged  to  a  Church 
which  practiced  baptism  by  affusion,  and  Dr.  Macknight 
practiced  it  himself.  Now,  then,  could  a  good  man,  a  pious 
man,  practice  a  mode  of  baptism  which  he  did  not  believe  to 
be  baptism  ?  Is  the  answer  not  evident  ?  Dr.  Macknight 
believed  that  immersion  was  alluded  to  in  certain  places  of 
the  New  Testament ;  but  at  the  same  time  he  believed  that 
it  was  not  the  only  mode  of  baptism.'' 

^^  But  then,  the  Baptists  say  that  his  inconsistency  is  not 
chargeable  to  them.  If  he  believed  one  thing  and  practiced 
another,  it  is  his  fault,  not  theirs." 

"  Very  true,  Mr.  Price ;  but  what  is  it  that  this  witness 
believes  ?" 

'^  That  baptism  is  immersion  in  water,  if  we  are  to  credit 
his  language." 

^'  No,  Mr.  Price,  he  does  not  say  that;  but  he  admits  that 
immersion  is  haj^tismJ' 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  187 

^^  Well,  Miss  Carrie,  begging  your  pardon  for  my  plain- 
ness, I  cannot  see  any  difference.  If  immersion  is  baptism, 
then  baptism  is  immersion  V 

"1  see  yom*  mistake,  Mr.  Price, '^  replied  Carrie;  ^^you 
take  the  two  words  as  precisely  equal  in  their  signification, 
and  of  course,  if  such  be  the  case,  whatever  one  means,  the 
other  means  also :  this  is  the  Baptist  view  of  the  subject. 
But  observe,  there  is  this  difference  between  the  two 
parties  :  one  contends  that  immersion  is  all  that  haiJtidzo 
means,  whilst  the  other  admits  that  it  is  ^  part  of  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word.  That  is  all  that  has  ever  been  granted  to 
Baptists  by  Pedobaptists.  And  what  can  they  make  of  it  ? 
Just  nothing  at  all. 

'^  Suppose,  for  instance,  I  tell  you  that  Mr.  Lawrence 
travelled  from  Maryville  to  Kingston  in  a  day :  would  you 
understand  by  that  expression  the  particular  mode  which 
Mr.  Lawrence  used  V 

"  Certainly  not.  Miss  Carrie ;  he  might  have  travelled  on 
horseback,  on  foot,  in  a  buggy,  or  in  a  carriage.'^ 

"  Yery  well,  Mr.  Price ;  is  the  action  the  same  when  a 
man  travels  on  foot  as  when  he  travels  in  a  buggy  ?" 

'^  Of  course  not.  Miss  Carrie,"  said  Mr.  Price ;  "  in  the 
first  case  he  is  active,  and  moves  forward  himself;  in 
the  second  he  is  passive,  and  is  drawn  forward  by  the 
horse.'' 

"  Exactly  so,  Mr.  Price.  And  yet  you  call  both  of  these 
modes,  the  active  and  the  passive,  by  the  generic  term 
travel  ?'' 

"  Yes.'' 

"  Y'^ell,  now,  what  would  you  think  of  the  man  who 
should  contend  that  there  was  but  one  way  to  travel,  and 
that  way  on  foot  ?" 

^'  I  should  think  that  he  was  simply  trifling." 

^'  But  suppose  he  should  bring  forward  some  authorities 


188  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

on  his  side;  say,  for  instance,  tlie  great  traveller,  Bayard 
Taylor.  Suppose  he  takes  Mr.  Taylor's  book,  '  Views 
Afoot,'  and  proves  that  Mr.  Taylor  travelled  over  several 
countries  in  Europe  on  foot,  and  then  argues  that  because 
Bayard  Taylor  travelled  over  England  on  foot,  that  he 
travelled  over  Egypt,  Palestine,  India,  China,  and  Japan  in 
the  very  same  way  ?" 

^'  I  should  say  that  his  argument  would  be  very  absurd. '^ 

^'  But  what  if  he  should  go  farther  still,  and  give  Mr. 
Taylor  as  testimony  that  travelling  on  foot  is  the  only  mode 
in  existence  V 

^'  That  is  hardly  a  possible  supposition,  Miss  Carrie,'' 
replied  Mr.  Price;  ^^no  one  could  attempt  such  a  foolish 
argument  as  that.'' 

''  You  are  mistaken,  Mr.  Price ;  the  Baptists  do  this  very 
thing  in  reference  to  baptism.  They  first  set  out  with  the 
assumption  that  the  Grreek  word  haptidzo  is  a  specific  word, 
meaning  mode,  and  nothing  else ;  in  which  position  they 
are  opposed  by  the  great  mass  of  learned  men  of  all  ages. 
Every  English  dictionary  in  existence  is  against  them  as  to 
the  meaning  of  the  English  word  baptize ;  every  Greek 
lexicon  that  has  been  published  is  against  them  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  Greek  word  haptidzo;  and  yet  they  quote 
these  lexicons,  as  far  as  suits  them,  but  no  farther;  and 
then  bring  up  those  passages  in  Pedobaptist  authors  which 
speak  of  immersion,  omitting  every  thing  on  the  other  side, 
and  endeavor  to  make  it  appear  that  both  lexicons  and 
authors  are  on  their  side. 

^^If  because  Dr.  Macknight  admits  that  immersion  is 
baptism,  and  if  he  thinks  immersion  was  the  ordinary  prac- 
tice of  the  ancient  Church,  we  are  to  conclude  that  the  doc- 
tor denies  that  any  thing  else  is  baptism,  then,  because 
Bayard  Taylor  says  he  travelled  on  foot  in  certain  countries, 
we  are  to  conclude  that  he   thus  travelled  everywhere  he 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  189 

went,  and  it  follows  that  Mr.  Taylor  allows  no  otlier  mode  of 
travelling." 

"But  stop,  Miss  Carrie/^  said  Mr.  Price;  "is  it  certain 
that  all  the  lexicons  are  against  the  Baptists  as  to  the  mean- 
ing of  haptldzo?''^ 

"  She  is  certainly  right/^  answered  Theophilus  ;  "  for  the 
Baptists  have  admitted  the  fact.  Were  you  not  out  last 
night,  Mr.  Price  ?" 

"No,"  replied  Mr.  Price;  "  I  was  too  unwell  to  attend. 
And  you  say  that  the  Baptists  admit  that  the  lexicons  are 
against  them  ?" 

"  Let  me  read  you  Dr.  Carson's  testimony.  You  know  he 
stands  highest  among  their  writers  on  this  subject." 

"  Very  well,  let  us  hear  his  admission." 

"  Here  it  is,"  answered  Theophilus ;  "  I  copied  it  from 
the  55th  page  of  his  work  on  Baptism,  edition  of  1855  : 
''My  i^os'it'ion  zs,  tliat  it  (baptidzo)  always  signijics  to  dip  ; 
never  exjjressing  any  thing  hut  mode.     Now,  as  I  have  ALL 

THE     LEXICOGRAPHERS     and     COMMENTATORS      AGrAINST 

■ 

ME  in  this  opinion,  it  loill  he  necessary  to  say  a  ivord  or  two 
with  respect  to  the  authority  of  lexicons.'  Now,  what  do 
you  think  of  that,  Mr.  Price  ?" 

"  I  should  say  that  was  giving  up  the  ship,"  he  replied ; 
"  an  unconditional  surrender  of  the  whole  question  in  dis- 
pute.    I  am  astonished,  sir,  at  that  admission." 

"And  now,  Mr.  Price,"  continued  Carrie,  "what  do  you 
think  of  the  argument  as  it  now  stands  ?  All  the  English 
dictionaries,  cdl  the  Grreek  lexicons,  all  the  commentators  on 
the  Greek  classics,  against  the  Baptist  position  that  baptize 
and  haptidzo  mean  only  to  immerse.  What  think  you  of 
the  preponderance  of  testimony  now?" 

"  Well,  well  !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Price,  "  I  should  think  a 
jury  could  decide  such  a  case  as  this  without  a  moment's 
deliberation.     When  the  other  side  admits  that  cdl  the  testi- 


190  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

mony  is  against  tlie  prisoner  at  the  bar,  I  sliould  say  that  his 
best  chance  would  be  to  plead  guilty,  and  throw  himself 
upon  the  mercy  of  the  court  V 

"  You  see,  then,  Mr.  Price,  that  the  testimony  of  Dr. 
Macknight,  Dr.  Chalmers,  Luther,  and  others,  that  immer- 
sion is  a  mode  of  baptism,  does  not  aifect  the  question  in 
the  least.  All  the  Greek  lexicographers  and  commentators, 
and  nearly  every  writer  upon  the  subject,  from  the  days  of 
the  apostles  to  the  present  time,  the  Baptists  excepted — that 
is,  most  of  the  Baptists  excepted — regard  the  Greek  word 
haptidzo  as  a  generic  term — expressing,  generally,  the  appli- 
cation of  water,  but  not  specifying  the  mode  by  which  it 
shall  be  applied.'' 

'^  There  is  another  fact,  too,  connected  with  this  subject," 
said  Theophilus.  '^  I  notice  that  the  Baptists  are  very  fond 
of  old  Pedobaptist  writers.  They  love  to  quote  Calvin,  and 
Luther,  and  Wesley,  instead  of  the  eminent  Pedobaptist 
critics  of  the  present  day.  Now,  everybody  knows  that  very 
little  was  said  or  written  about  the  mode  of  baptism  in  their 
lifetime.  The  subject,  when  introduced  at  all,  was  chiefly 
introduced  in  connection  with  the  design  and  iLses  of  the 
ordinance.  Of  course,  their  examination  of  the  word  must 
have  been  quite  superficial,  and  consequently  their  testi- 
mony is  not  to  be  relied  upon  when  it  comes  in  contact 
with  that  of  able  modern  critics,  who  have  spent  the 
most  of  their  lives  in  the  examination  of  this  and  kindred 
subjects." 

'•'  I  was  just  about  to  make  the  same  or  a  similar  remark," 
continued  Carrie ;  '^  for  a  critic  must  be  familiar  with  his 
subject  to  be  of  value.  For  instance,  if  we  want  good 
authority  to  prove  the  corruptions  of  the  Roman  Catholic 
Church  in  the  sixteenth  century,  Luther  and  Calvin  are  the 
authors  to  whom  we  go.  And  why  ?  Simply  because  these 
men  spent  their  lives  in  endeavoring  to  purge  the  Church 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  191 

from  these  errors.  Thej  were  qualified  to  judge  of  them 
because  they  were  the  subjects  of  study  and  close  examina- 
tiou.  But  when  we  introduce  these  writers  as  good  testi- 
mony in  a  controversy  which  was  almost  or  quite  unknown 
in  that  century — when  such  a  thing  as  a  Baptist  book  in 
defence  of  exclusive  immersion  was  not  extant — the  folly 
of  such  a  course  is  apparent  to  every  mind.  If  Dr.  Carson 
had  written  his  book  in  Luther's  lifetime,  or  if  it  had  been 
answered  by  Calvin,  any  admission  from  these  reformers 
would  have  been  of  value  to  the  Baptist  cause. 

''The  simple  fact,  however,  that  these  men  considered 
immersion  to  be  a  mode  of  baptism,  whilst  they  practiced  at 
the  same  time  baptism  by  sprinkling  and  pouring,  is  not  a 
'  concession'  to  Baptist  theory.'' 

''I  examined  the  Grerman  Bible  to-day.  Miss  Carrie,  in 
order  to  see  how  Luther  had  translated  ha^tldzo.''' 
"  Well,  how  does  he  render  it  ?" 
"By  the  Grerman  word  faii/en/'  replied  Theophilus. 
''And  does  that  mean  to  immerse  ?"  inquired  Carrie. 
"No,  Miss  Carrie;  the  word  tauchen  means  to  immerse. 
Taii/en  in  German  is  precisely  equivalent  to  baptize  in  Eng- 
lish." 

"  Yery  well,  then,  Luther  does  not  testify  that  lapticho 
means  onli/  to  immerse,  or  else  he  would  have  rendered  it  so 
in  his  translation  of  the  Scriptures.  We  have,  then.  Dr. 
Macknight  against  the  Baptists  instead  of  in  their  favor, 
which  we  prove  by  his  irracticinrj  pouring  and  sprinkling, 
which  he  could  not  have  done  with  honesty  if  he  believed  it 
wrong.  If  he  was  a  dislionest  man,  his  testimony  is  useless 
on  either  side.  If  he  knew  or  believed  immersion  to  be  the 
only  mode,  and  yet  iuoilM  not  practice  it,  he  was  a  bad  man 
— wilfully  disobeying  what  he  believed  to  be  the  command 
of  Christ.  If  he  was  a  had  man,  his  testimony  is  not  worth 
any  thing.     So  the  Baptists,  to  make  any  thing  of   such 


192  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

witnesses  as  these,  must  j^^^ove  that  they  are  unworthy 
of  helief.     There  is  no  way  to  avoid  this  conclusion. 

''  Luther's  testimony,  upon  cross-examination,  turns  out 
to  be  against  the  Baptists,  because  he  does  not  render  the 
word  into  his  own  language  by  a  term  signifying  only  to 
immerse.  Dr.  Chalmers  and  Calvin  are  precisely  upon  the 
same  footing  as  Dr.  Macknight.  If  they  were  good  men, 
and  believed  immersion  to  be  the  only  mode,  then  they 
would  have  practiced  it.  But  we  know  they  did  not  prac- 
tice it,  and  they  are  universally  admitted  to  be  good  men; 
therefore  it  follows  that  they  did  not  believe  the  Baptist 
doctrine. 

•'  I  now  come  to  Mr,  Wesley's  testimony.  This  witness 
is  handled  very  roughly  by  Theodosia.  She  takes  one  half 
of  his  testimony,  and  of  course  omits  all  that  is  against  her. 
She  jQrst  introduces  Mr.  Wesley's  comment  on  Romans  vi. 
4,  where  he  says  :  '  The  allusion  is  to  the  ancient  manner  of 
baptizing  by  immersion.'  Now,  if  you  examine  this  book, 
(Theodosia,)  you  will  see  that  there  is  a  comma  between  the 
words  'baptizing'  and  'by  immersion.'  In  Mr,  Wesley's 
Notes,  however,  there  is  none.  Theodosia's  object  is  to 
show  that  Mr.  Wesley  believed  that  immersion  was  the  ONLY 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing.  If  it  is  paraphrased  thus  : 
'  This  passage  alludes  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptizing' — 
which  manner  was  by  immersion — it  is  clear  that  Mr. 
Wesley  means  that  there  was  only  one  mode  known  to  the 
ancient  Church,  and  that  mode  was  immersion.  If  we  read 
it  as  Mr,  Wesley  wrote  it,  however,  we  would  understand  it 
thus  :  This  passage  alludes  to  the  ancient  manner  of  baptiz- 
ing by  immersion — that  is,  the  manner  or  mode  of  immers- 
ing is  here  alluded  to,  at  the  same  time  leaving  it  to  be 
understood  that  there  were  other  ancient  modes,  not  alluded 
to  here,  and  therefore  not  mentioned  here." 

^'A  comma  is  a  very  important   thing   sometimes,"  ob- 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  193 

served  Theophilus ;  "  I  remember  a  very  important  law-case 
which  all  turned  upon  the  position  of  the  comma  in  a 
sentence  of  a  will.  I  recollect,  too,  an  amusing  instance  of 
the  value  of  proper  punctuation.  It  is  said  that  it  was  once 
customary  in  England  to  request  publicly  the  prayers  of  the 
Church  for  those  who  had  embarked  for  a  long  and  perilous 
voyage.  In  accordance  with  this  custom,  the  wife  of  a  man 
who  had  just  left  the  harbor  in  a  vessel,  sent  a  note  to  the 
minister  which  ought  to  have  read  as  follows  :  '  John  Brown 
having  gone  to  sea,  his  wife  requests  the  prayers  of  the 
Church.'  The  comma,  however,  was  placed  after  the  word 
^  wife,'  and  the  minister  read  it  thus :  '  John  Brown 
having  gone  to  see  his  wife,  requests  the  prayers  of  the 
Church  !' " 

"  I  should  think  the  gravity  of  that  congregation  was 
upset  for  that  day,"  said  Mr.  Price. 

"  Your  anecdote  shows  the  necessity  of  correctly  punctu- 
ating a  sentence  in  order  to  give  its  proper  meaning,"  con- 
tinued Carrie,  "  and  whether  this  perversion  of  Mr.  Wesley's 
meaning  is  a  mistake  only,  or  is  designed  to  do  him  injustice, 
the  author  of  Theodosia  Ernest  only  can  positively  tell. 
But  to  show  you  that  Mr,  Wesley  did  not  believe  immer- 
sion to  be  the  only  mode  practiced  by  the  ancient  Church,  I 
will  read  his  note  on  Colossians  ii.  12.  He  says:  'The 
ancient  manner  of  baptizing  by  immersion  is  as  evidently 
alluded  to  here,  as  the  other  manner  of  hajitizing  hy 
SPRINKLING  or  POURING  of  water  is,  Hebrews  x.  22;  hut 
no  stress  is  laid  on  the  age  of  the  hajptized,  or  the  manner  of 
'performing  it,  in  one  or  the  other.' 

'^  Theodosia  brings  forward  a  passage  from  Mr.  Wesley's 

Journal,"  continued  Carrie,  "  in  which  he  says  that  '  Mary 

Welch,  aged    eleven  days,  was   baptized  according   to  the 

custom  of  the  first  Church  and  the  rule  of  the  Church  of 

9 


194  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

England,  by  immersion/  So  Theodosia  gives  tlie  quotation, 
and  I  charge  this  punctuation  with  the  same  unfairness 
practiced  in  the  other.  However,  if  it  is  granted  that  Mr. 
Wesley  thought  then  that  immersion  was  the  only  ^  custom 
of  the  first  Church/  we  have  seen  that  he  did  not  think  so 
twenty-five  years  afterwards,  when  he  wrote  his  Notes  on  the 
New  Testament. 

^'  One  more  allusion  to  Mr.  Wesley  I  will  notice.  I  will 
read  Mr.  Courtney's  language,  in  Theodosia,  page  62 : 
^  Moreover,  it  seems  from  his  (Mr.  Wesley's)  conduct  after- 
wards, that  he  felt  as  much  liberty  himself  to  change  the 
ordinance  of  Christ,  as  the  makers  of  the  Rubric  had  done ; 
for  when  he  organized  his  societies,  and  gave  them  ^  the 
Discipline'  as  their  organic  law,  he  directed  baptism  to  be 
performed  by  sprinkling  or  pouring,  if  the  parties  preferred 
it.'^' 

^'  Now,"  continued  Carrie,  ^^  the  mildest  language  which 
this  passage  deserves  is  a  direct  charge  of  misrepresentation. 
And  I  notice  three  palpable  misrepresentations  of  Mr. 
Wesley.  In  the  first  place,  it  is  untrue  that  Mr.  Wesley 
^  felt  himself  at  liberty  to  change  the  ordinance  of  Christ.' 
The  charge  is  wholly  gratuitous.  In  the  next  place,  it  is 
untrue  that  Mr.  Wesley  gave  or  enjoined  the  Discipline 
upon  the  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  as  their  organic  law. 
Mr.  Wesley  did  not  draw  up  the  Discipline ;  it  was  done  by 
the  preachers  assembled  at  the  Conference  in  1784,  which 
organized  the  Methodist  Church.  In  the  third  place,  Mr. 
Wesley  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  inserting  the 
passage  which  this  author  alludes  to,  in  the  Discipline. 
It  was  the  work  of  the  Methodist  ministry  before  men- 
tioned. The  proof  of  these  statements,  as  regards  the 
provision  of  the  Discipline,  will  be  found  in  Emory^s 
History  of  the  Discipline^  pages  25,  45. 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  195 

"But  I  tliink  we  have  pretty  well  consumed  the  time 
allotted  to  our  meeting  this  afternoon.  With  your  con- 
sent, we  will  resume  the  subject  to-morrow  afternoon." 
With  this  understanding  the  company  separated. 


gmxili  (Bv(\x\i\^. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS  EXAMINED. 


WHY  WAS  CHRIST  BAPTIZED?     HOW  WAS 
CHRIST  BAPTIZED? 


MORE  LIGHT— MR.  BATTLE  IN  THE  FIELD. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  199 


FOUllTH  EVENING 


^^Well,  Mr.  Mason/'  said  Theopliilus,  as  soon  as  the 
people  had  assembled  on  Tuesday  evening,  ^'  I  am  ready  to 
admit  that  John's  baptism  was  typical  of  the  baptism  of  the 
Holy  Grhost,  for  this  I  see  stated  by  John  himself.  I  admit, 
also,  that  there  is  no  place  which  I  have  seen  in  the  Bible, 
where  spiritual  baptism  is  said  to  be  an  immersion.  Still, 
however,  I  find  it  stated  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan,  and 
that  Jesus  came  up  out  of  the  water;  now,  unless  he  was 
immersed,  how  can  we  understand  these  statements  ?" 

'^  I  purposely  delayed  giving  you  all  the  facts  about  the 
mode  last  evening,  because  it  was  growing  late,  and  I  was 
fearful  of  wearying  you.  There  are  several  questions  to  be 
answered  before  we  can  arrive  at  a  satisfactory  conclusion. 
Why  did  John  preach  in  the  wilderness,  rather  than  in  the 
city  of  Jerusalem  ?  Why  did  he  not  follow  the  example  of 
Jonah,  and  go  to  the  very  heart  of  the  city,  preaching 
repentance  ?  Why  was  the  place  of  his  ministry  a  desert, 
instead  of  a  large  city,  like  Nineveh,  or  Jerusalem  V 

'•'■  Because  it  was  prophesied  of  him  that  he  should  be  the 
voice  of  one  crying  in  the  wilderness." 

'^  True,  but  why  was  such  a  prophecy  recorded  ?  There 
must  have  been  a  reason  for  it,  some  object  in  it,  otherwise 
it  would   seem   to   be  a  mere  novelty,  designed  simply  to 


200  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

attract  the  attention  of  the  people^  and  excite  their  curi- 
osity/' 

'^  I  suppose  that  icas  the  reason/'  replied  Theophilus. 

"  But  we  have  no  authority  for  saying  so.  No  statement 
of  the  kind  is  made  in  the  Bible.  It  may  be  said  by  the 
Baptists  that  John  went  into  the  wilderness  in  order  to  be 
convenient  to  the  river — but  this  does  not  appear  probable. 
Why  should  John  require  the  river  Jordan  to  immerse  his 
subjects,  if  three  thousand  persons  could  be  immersed  in  the 
city  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  ?  This  the  Baptists  say  was 
the  case ;  and,  therefore,  if  we  grant  their  assertion  about 
the  Pentecostal  converts,  we  take  away  the  argument  for 
John's  resorting  to  the  river.  There  was  water  enough 
in  the  city;  therefore  this  reason  cannot  hold  good.  The 
same  necessity  of  miich  water  for  immersion  existed  in  both 
cases.  If  John  resorted  to  the  river  on  this  account,  the 
apostles  must  have  done  so,  too.  But  of  this  there  is 
not  the  slightest  intimation  in  the  New  Testament.  We 
are  compelled  to  conclude  that  this  was  not  the  reason, 
because  other  particulars  are  given  which  do  not  allow  such 
an  inference.  It  is  said  that  John,  whilst  in  the  wilderness, 
had  locusts  and  wild  honey  for  his  meat,  and  his  dress  was 
of  cameVs  hair,  having  a  leathern  girdle  about  his  loins. 
These  facts — his  dwelling  in  a  desert,  his  preaching  there, 
his  baptizing  there,  his  coarse  raiment,  his  simple  food — are 
all  to  be  taken  together ;  they  are  all  characteristics  of  the 
man,  and  there  was  something  designed  in  all  these  particu- 
lars.    What  was  it  ? 

^'  When  we  remember  that  John's  manner  of  life  was  a 
near  return  to  the  habits  of  the  patriarchal  ages;  when  we 
consider  that  the  pride  and  effeminacy  of  the  Jewish  priests 
were  never  greater  than  at  this  very  period,  we  shall  see  at 
once  the  object  of  his  seclusion  from  the  multitude.  He 
was  appointed  to  be  the  forerunner  of  a  new  dispensation ; 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  201 

a  dispensation  whose  simplicity  was  placed  in  contrast  with 
the  burdensome  rites  and  imposing  ceremonies  of  the  Mosaic 
ritual.  He  was  appointed  to  exhibit  in  his  life,  as  well  as 
by  his  preaching,  these  great  truths.  The  induction  of  the 
people  into  his  preparatory  institutions  was  designed  to 
enforce  upon  them  a  separation  from  the  ceremonial  law, 
and  the  concentration  of  their  faith  and  hopes  in  a  purely 
spiritual  worship.  Hence  he  used  no  synagogue;  he 
preached  not  in  the  temple,  nor  in  the  cities ;  they  sought 
him,  leaving  behind  them  all  the  insignia  of  Judaism,  and 
embracing  a  new  mode  of  worship.  It  is  well  known  that 
the  Roman  Catholics  urge  the  conduct  of  John  as  an 
example  which  authorizes  them  to  build  monasteries,  con- 
vents, and  nunneries,  for  the  purpose  of  secluding  them- 
selves from  the  world.  However  they  may  err  as  to  the 
nature  of  the  icarrant,  it  is  clear  that  the  great  idea  of  meek- 
ness and  humility,  as  opposed  to  worldly-mindedness  and 
pride,  was  distinctly  exhibited  in  John's  temporary  dispen- 
sation. 

^'  This  being  the  reason  for  John's  preaching  in  the  desert, 
it  becomes  also  the  reason  for  his  hoptizing  there;  and  con- 
sequently he  resorted  to  the  river  as  the  most  convenient, 
perhaps  the  only  place  for  obtaining  water.  It  is  inferred, 
because  he  is  said  to  have  baptized  in  the  river,  that  the 
people  were  plunged  under  the  water ;  but  this  inference  is 
by  no  means  just.  He  used  the  icater  of  the  river,  and  is 
therefore  said  to  have  baptized  in  it.  The  force  of  a  pre- 
positionj  even  in  our  own  language,  ought  not  to  overcome 
the  stronger  reasoning  of  analogy,  based  upon  the  resemblance 
between  the  emblem  and  the  thing  signified.  There  are 
thirteen  prepositions,  besides  ev,  in  the  Greek  Testament, 
which  are  rendered  properly  in.  This  very  preposition  ev 
is  used  in  the  New  Testament  forty-seven  difi'erent  ways,  ex- 
pressing various  shades  of  meaning.  To  reduce  the  Greek 
9* 


202  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

ev  to  tlie  invariable  meaning  of  in,  would  destroy  the  sense 
of  very  many  passages  of  Scripture.  For  instance,  our 
Saviour  says,  in  the  twenty-third  of  Matthew,  'Woe  unto 
you,  ye  blind  guides  !  which  say,  whosoever  shall  swear  hi/ 
(ev)  the  temple,  it  is  nothing ;  but  whosoever  shall  swear  hr/ 
(ev)  the  gold  of  the  temple,  he  is  a  debtor,'  Surely  the 
Pharisees  did  not  allow  men  to  swear  in  the  temple !  Again 
he  says,  '  Whoso,  therefore,  shall  swear  hi/  (ev)  the  altar, 
sweareth  h?/  (ev)  it,  and  b?/  (ev)  all  things  thereon.'  Did  he 
say,  whoso  sweareth  in  the  altar,  sweareth  in  it,  and  in  all 
things  thereon?" 

''Allow  me  to  ask,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  "  if  that 
view  of  the  matter  does  not  render  it  difficult  to  understand 
the  Greek  language,  and  make  it  doubtful  what  is  required 
of  us  in  the  Scriptures  ?" 

"  Not  at  all,  Theophilus.  The  very  fact  which  I  state  here 
about  the  Greek  preposition,  is  also  true  of  the  English  in. 
Dr.  Webster,  our  standard  lexicographer,  after  giving  various 
definitions  of  the  preposition,  says,  '  The  uses  of  in,  hovjever, 
cannot  in  all  cases  he  defined  hy  equivalent  words,  except  hy 
explaining  the  phrase  in  which  it  is  used.'  This  is  true,  to 
a  greater  or  less  extent,  of  all  prepositions,  in  whatever  lan- 
guage they  may  exist.  As  they  are  expressive  of  real  or 
imaginary  relations  between  substantives,  it  is  impossible  to 
confine  any  one  of  them  to  a  single  idea,  or  to  provide  a  dis- 
tinct word  for  every  such  relation.  This  you  know,  for  it 
requires  but  little  observation  to  notice  it. 

"  The  peculiarities  of  our  language  are  as  difficult  to 
foreigners  as  theirs  are  to  us.  And  yet  we  are  never  at  a 
loss  to  understand  each  other.  There  is  no  necessity  for 
Greek  to  be  unintelligible,  simply  because  prepositions  are 
used  interchangeably.  It  must  be  evident  to  your  mind 
that  no  argument  can  be  formed  upon  such  a  basis.  But  if 
it  is  granted  that  the  baptism  wa-s  administered  literally  in 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  203 

the  river  Jordan — if  we  admit  that  John  stood  in  the  water, 
and  the  subjects  walked  into  it,  where  is  the  proof  that  they 
went  under  the  water?  There  is  none.  The  symbolical 
sense  of  the  ordinance  rejects  the  propriety  of  immersion, 
and  indicates  a  different  mode.  I  have  given  the  preposi- 
tion ev  the  force  of  into,  rather  than  in,  in  this  argument, 
because  the  Baptists  claim  it  as  the  general  sense  of  the 
word.  It  is  fair,  then,  to  apply  the  same  rule  to  the  bap- 
tism of  Christ  by  John,  in  the  account  of  which  Baptists 
are  very  willing  to  repudiate  their  rule,  because  it  is  against 
them  in  that  case.  You  know  it  is  said  that  Jesus,  after  he 
was  baptized,  ^  came  up  out  of  the  water.'  Hence  it  is 
affirmed  he  was  immersed.  The  critics  forget,  however,  that 
diTo,  which  is  rendered  out  of,  ordinarily  means  from,  and 
that  if  it  is  so  rendered  it  destroys  their  theory.  I  will  not 
give  you  7717/  word,  however,  but  better  testimony  from  the 
■Baptist  Dr.  Carson  :  he  says,  page  337:  ^  I  deny  that  it  (ctTrb) 
ever  signifies  out  of.'  There  you  have  the  testimony  of  the 
Corrector-G-eneral  of  Lexicons  and  Dictionaries.  He  affirms 
that  the  word  'means  from.  We  are  not  informed  that 
Jesus  went  into  the  water,  and  we  are  only  told  that  he  came 
from  it :  all  that  supports  the  idea  of  immersion  is  the  fact 
that  he  was  baptized  in  Jordan.  This  is  indeed  a  slender 
thread  by  which  the  doctrine  of  immersion  hangs,  and  when 
we  admit  all  that  can  be  said  of  it,  the  positive  proof  of  im- 
mersion is  not  to  be  found.  Suppose  I  were  to  tell  you  that 
your  health  depended  upon  your  bathing  in  the  river  :  would 
you  necessarily  understand  me  to  require  you  to  immerse 
your  whole  body  in  the  water  ?" 

^'  No,  sir :  I  have  frequently  bathed  and  swum  in  deep 
water,  without  at  any  time  being  submerged." 

^^Then  it  is  possible  tha.t  one  may  stand  in  a  river  without 
being  wholly  immersed  :  it  is  possible  for  one  to  plunge  into 


204  THEOPHILUS    AVALTONj     OR, 

a  river  on  horseback  and  never  get  his  feet  wet.  These 
things  are  possible,  to  say  the  least/^ 

"Certainly  they  are,  Mr.  Mason/'  said  Theophilus,  "and 
I  have  known  many  boys  who,  though  they  were  fond  of 
swimming,  could  not  dive,  or  even  hold  their  heads  under 
water  a  moment." 

"  Yet  these  boys  swam  in  the  creek  or  river,  did  they  not?'' 

"  Certainly,  sir.'' 

"  Well,  then,  the  preposition  in  does  not  prove  that  Christ 
went  under  water.  We  must  now  learn  ichy  he  was  baptized, 
and  then  we  shall  probably  see  hoio  the  action  was  performed. 
The  Baptists  are  hard  pressed  for  a  7'eason  in  this  case.  TFAy 
was  our  Lord  Jesus  Cltristhaptized  f  Some  say  that  he  was 
baptized  in  order  to  encourage  the  people  to  honor  John's  min- 
istry. Luke,  however,  contradicts  this  statement  in  the  third 
chapter:  ^Now  luhen  all  the  people  iccre  hap)tized,  it  came  to 
pass,  that  Jesus  also  being  baptized,  and  praying,  the  heaven 
was  opened,'  etc.  If  the  people  were  baptized  before  Christ, 
certainly  he  could  not  set  them  an  example.  So  far  from  this, 
such  an  example  would  have  misled  the  people.  If  Christ  had 
submitted  to  baptism  to  honor  John,  he  would  have  acknow- 
ledged himself  a  sinner,  for  the  ordinance  was  designed  for 
sinners  only.  Just  men,  if  there  had  been  any,  would  not 
need  repentance,  and  therefore  needed  not  the  baptism  of 
repentance.  Unless  there  was  a  difference  in  the  act  which 
John  performed  in  reference  to  Jesus,  or  some  other  method 
of  distinguishing  his  true  character,  Christ,  by  being  bap- 
tized, would  have  been  considered  by  the  Jews  a  sinner  like 
themselves.  But  there  is  another  difficulty  in  the  way.  In 
whose  name  was  Christ  baptized,  and  upon  what  profession 
of  faith?  These  are  essential  points  in  the  baptism  of  im- 
mersionists — the  absence  of  the  faith  annuls  it,  they  say. 
So  also  does  the  absence  of  \X\q^  Christian  formula.     Now  it 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  205 

is  evident  Christ  did  not  profess  faith  in  himself:  that  would 
be  absurd.  Nor  could  ho  be  baptized  in  his  owii  name  :  that 
would  be  equally  absurd.  If  then  he  was  baptized  in  the 
name  of  the  Father  only,  his  example  would  lead  to  his  own 
rejection  !  This  is  plain.  And  if  he  had  been  baptized  in 
his  oicn  name,  he  would  have  acknowledged  thereby  that  he 
was  his  own  Saviour !  Our  Lord  could  not,  then,  without 
denying  his  own  mission,  receive  the  same  baptism  which 
was  administered  to  others.  No  formula  could  have  been 
used,  no  repentance  required,  no  faith,  or  profession  of  it, 
necessary,  and  the  only  point  of  similarity  between  the  cere- 
mony performed  on  our  Saviour,  and  that  performed  on  the 
sinful  Jews,  was  the  mode  of  administration.  In  this  alone 
can  it  be  said  to  he  a  hai^tism  at  all. 

''  We  must  permit  Christ  and  John  to  solve  the  difficulty 
in  this  case.  When  Christ  came  to  be  baptized,  John  ob- 
jected, on  the  ground  that  he  was  not  worthy  to  baptize 
Jesus,  but  needed  rather  to  be  baptized  by  him.  Christ 
replied  :  '  Suffer  it  to  be  so  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to 
fulfil  all  righteousness.'  That  is,  it  was  John's  duty  to  bap- 
tize him.  Why  ?  Because  he  was  the  herald  of  Christ,  and 
for  this  very  purpose,  to  make  the  Saviour  manifest,  he  was 
sent  to  baptize.  The  act  then  was  simply  a  formal  recogni- 
tion of  Jesus  as  the  Christ,  the  Anointed  One,  and  hence- 
forth the  only  High-Priest,  who,  by  his  intercession,  could 
make  atonement  for  sin.  In  that  very  hour  the  imperfect 
priesthood  of  the  Jewish  system  was  abolished  by  the  special 
mandate  of  the  King  of  heaven.  Christ  was  saluted  by 
John  in  these  words:  'Behold  the  Lamb  of  God  which 
taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  !'  Keeping  in  mind  the  fact 
that  the  Jews  whom  John  had  baptized  had  renounced  the 
ceremonial  law,  and  that  John's  ministry  was  intended  to 
connect  the  Jewish  to  the  Christian  dispensation,  we  at  once 
gee  the  propriety  of  this  public  recognition  of  the  Messiah 


206  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

He  was  indeed  in  tlieir  midst  before,  but  until  the  moment 
of  his  recognition  he  had  gathered  no  disciples,  and  had  not 
public]}^  announced  his  mission.  The  baptism  of  Christ  was 
then  the  recognition  of  his  official  character,  whereby  he  was 
declared  to  be,  as  St.  Paul  in  his  letter  to  the  Hebrews  in- 
forms us,  the  High-Priest  of  our  profession,  the  only  true 
and  proper  Intercessor  for  the  children  of  men.  In  order  to 
ascertain  the  manner  of  consecrating  a  high-priest,  we  must 
examine  the  eighth  chapter  of  Leviticus.  Here  we  read  that 
'  Moses  brought  Aaron  and  his  sons  and  washed  them  with 
water.  And  Moses  took  the  anointing  oil,  and  anointed 
the  tabernacle,  and  all  that  was  therein,  and  sanctified  them. 
And  he  sprinkled  thereof  upon  the  altar  seven  times,  and 
anointed  the  altar  and  all  his  vessels,  both  the  laver  and  his 
foot,  to  sanctify  them.  And  he  poured  of  the  anointing  oil 
upon  Aaron's  head,  and  anointed  him,  to  sanctify  him.'  In 
like  manner  was  our  great  High-Priest  consecrated  to  his 
holy  office.  He  was  first  washed  by  the  water  of  baptism, 
and  then  anointed  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  of  whose  influences 
the  anointing  oil,  poured  upon  the  head  of  Aaron,  was  sym- 
bolical. Thus  Peter  says,  '  That  word,  I  say,  ye  know,  which 
was  published  throughout  allJudea,  and  began  from  Galilee, 
after  the  baptism  which  John  preached  :  How  God  anointed 
Jesus  of  Nazareth  with  the  Holy  Ghost  and  with  power; 
who  went  about  doing  good,  and  healing  all  that  were  op- 
pressed of  the  devil;  for  God  was  with  him.^  Inasmuch, 
then,  as  the  first  high-priest  was  consecrated  by  washing  with 
water  and  by  the  pouring  of  oil  upon  his  head,  so  the  last 
High-Priest  was  consecrated  by  the  washing  with  water  and 
by  the  anointing  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  Moses,  the  instrument 
in  the  hand  of  God  in  delivering  his  people  from  the  bondage 
of  Egypt,  being  the  first  consecrator,  and  John,  the  greatest 
among  those  born  of  women  under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  and 
the  instrument  in  God's  hand  in  turning  the  minds  of  the  people 


THE  MAJESTY  OP  TRUTH.  207 

from  the  law,  wliicli  was  only  the  shadow,  to  the  great  Sub- 
stance himself,  being  the  second  consecrator. 

''  "We  may  continue  this  parallel  to  any  reasonable  extent, 
and  at  every  step  our  view  is  confirmed.  Moses  received  his 
commission  in  the  wilderness,  and  Aaron  was  consecrated  in 
the  wilderness.  John  was  a  voice  crying  in  the  wilderness, 
and  there  he  consecrated  Christ  to  the  office  of  High-Priest 
for  ever  after  the  order  of  Melchisedek.  Moses  was  not  a 
priest,  but  a  divinely-appointed  administrator,  receiving  his 
commission  directly  from  the  Lord.  So  also  John  was  not  a 
priest,  but  received  his  commission  directly  from  the  Lord, 
his  especial  work  being  to  prepare  the  way  for,  and  to  intro- 
duce to  the  Jews,  their  Prophet,  Priest,  and  King. 

'^  Immediately  after  his  consecration  by  John,  as  Christ 
was  praying,  the  heavens  opened,  and  the  Holy  Spirit, 
under  the  emblem  of  a  dove,  alighted  upon  his  head. 
Here,  then,  was  his  recognition  by  the  Father,  whose  voice 
was  heard,  saying,  '  This  is  my  beloved  Son,  in  whom  I  am 
well  pleased.^  Here  Christ  was  made  manifest  to  Israel : 
first,  by  John  baptizing  him  or  consecrating  him  with  water ; 
then  by  the  Holy  Spirit  descending  upon  him,  plainly  point- 
ing out  that  he  would  indeed  fulfil  the  prediction  of  John, 
and  baptize  the  people  with  the  Holy  Spirit.  The  emblem 
of  purification,  water,  and  the  agent,  the  Spirit,  followed 
each  other  in  quick  succession.  The  sign  and  the  thing  sig- 
nified were  thus  plainly  exhibited,  and  from  that  hcmr 
Jesus  was  the  Christ. ^^ 

_  ^'  I  have  never  heard  that  view  expressed  before,  Mr. 
Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  ^'but  I  must  say  that  it  solves  all 
the  difficulties  in  my  mind  upon  this  subject.  I  recollect 
reading  some  time  ago  an  author  who  ridiculed  the  idea  that 
Jesus  was  made  a  priest  by  his  baptism,  but  the  writer 
directed  his  remarks  against  the  word  '  Jewish.^  You  hav(^ 
not  said  that  he  was  a  Jewish  priest,  but  the  High-Priest, 


208  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

the  anointed  Christ,  the  Sacrifice  and  Mediator.  I  shall 
never  be  able  to  thank  you  sufiiciently  for  the  information 
you  have  given  me." 

'''  I  know,  Theophilus/^  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  that  some 
Baptist  writers  have  attempted  to  treat  this  argument  with 
levity;  but  they  are  not  the  first  men  who  have  labored  to 
ridicule  that  which  they  cannot  answer.  The  Apostle  Paul 
does  positively  say  that  Christ  is  our  High-Priest ;  that  he 
was  called  of  God,  as  was  Aaron,  and  we  have  already  seen 
how  Aaron  was  sanctified  and  consecrated  by  Moses;  and 
also  that  Christ  was  consecrated  by  John.  Indeed,  Paul 
says,  in  Hebrews  vii.  21  :  '  For  those  priests  (Aaron  and  his 
successors)  were  made  without  an  oath ;  but  this  (Christ) 
with  an  oath,  by  him  that  said  unto  him.  The  Lord  sware, 
and  will  not  repent.  Thou  art  a  priest  for  ever  after  the  order 
of  Melchisedek.'  Our  Saviour,  then,  was  recognized  as 
High-Priest  by  the  baptism  of  consecration ;  ministered  at 
the  altar  for  nearly  three  years  afterward,  doing  works  of 
mercy  and  teaching  the  people ;  then  offered  up  himself  on 
the  cross  as  a  sacrifice  for  sinners ;  entered  within  the  vail 
into  the  holy  of  holies,  and  there  liveth  to  make  interces- 
sion for  us. 

'^Unless  we  receive  this  view  of  the  subject,  we  are 
beset  by  innumerable  difficulties.  The  baptism  of  our 
Saviour  becomes  not  only  an  unmeaning  ceremony,  but  it  is 
made  absolutely  inconsistent  with  his  character  and  mission. 
To  baptize  him  as  a  proselyte  to  the  teachings  of  John  is  to 
make  him  a  sinner,  in  no  respect  differing  from  others.  To 
baptize  him  upon  a  j>''^ofcssion  of  faith  in.  his  own  death, 
burial,  and  resurrection,  is  absurd.  To  baptize  him  as  an 
example  for  others,  is  to  place  him  upon  the  same  moral 
platform — to  make  him  a  partaker,  in  the  symbols  of  purifi- 
cation, when  he  was  himself  the  dispenser  of  the  grace 
which  was  signified.     But  when  we  regard  the  act  as  John's 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.  209 

official  recognition  of  tlie  Messiah,  all  these  difficulties 
vanish.  We  at  once  see  the  harmony  and  beauty  of  that 
providential  dispensation  which  first  brought  the  people  to 
look  for  the  Anointed  One,  their  true  Iligh-Priest,  and  then, 
by  anointing  him  before  the  assembled  multitude,  pointed 
out  the  person  who  was  spoken  of  by  the  patriarchs,  and 
prophesied  of  by  the  prophets. 

'^  The  same  difficulties  attend  any  attempt  to  blend  the 
baptism  of  John  with  the  Christian  ordinance.  In  proof  of 
my  position,  I  will  give  you  a  brief  sketch  of  the  unanswer- 
able arguments  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  than  whom  the 
Baptists  have  never  had  either  a  greater  or  a  better  man. 
^  John  uniformly  ascribes  his  commission,'  says  Hall,  '■  not  to 
Christ,  but  to  the  Father;  so  that  to  assert  his  baptism  to 
be  a  Christian  institute,  is  not  to  interjjref,  but  to  contradict 
him.'  ^All  he  demanded  of  such  as  repaired  to  him  was  to 
declare  their  conviction  that  the  Messiah  was  shortly  to 
appear,  to  repent  of  their  sins,  and  resolve  to  frame  their 
lives  in  a  manner  agreeable  to  such  an  expectation,  without 
requiring  a  belief  in  any  existing  individual  as  the  Messiah/ 
'  Christian  baptism  was  invariably  administered  in  the 
name  of  Jesus;  while  there  is  sufficient  evidence  that 
John's  was  not  performed  in  that  name.'  '  The  baptism 
instituted  by  our  Lord  is  in  Scripture  distinguished  from 
that  of  the  forerunner  by  the  superior  effects  with  which  it 
was  accompanied ;  so  that,  instead  of  being  confounded,  they 
are  contrasted  in  the  sacred  historians.' — Terms  of  Commu- 
nion, Sec..  1. 

"  This  is  the  testimony  of  a  Baptist,  a  great  and  a  good 
man  ;  one  who  has  accomplished  more  for  the  Redeemer's 
kingdom  than  a  thousand  Carsons,  Gales,  Fullers,  and 
Booths.  You  will  not  fail  to  see  that  his  candid  view  of  the 
subject  makes  it  impossible  that  Christ  should  receive 
either   John's   or   the    Christian   baptism.     He   could   not 


210  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

receive  Jolin's,  because  that  was  connected  with  repentance 
for  the  past,  and  hope  in  the  Messiah  to  be  revealed ;  and 
that  he  could  not  receive  Christian  baptism  at  the  hands  of 
John,  needs  no  argument  in  proof. 

^^  Now  let  us  recapitulate  the  points  which  we  have  deter- 
mined. 1.  The  proselyte  baptism  or  washing  of  the 
Jews  could  not  be  the  model  for  John's,  as  the  first  had  no 
administrator,  and  involved  a  change  in  the  object  of  faith, 
from  idolatry  to  the  only  true  worship.  2.  John  preached 
in  the  wilderness  in  order  to  prepare  the  way  for  a  dispen- 
sation whose  coming  would  abrogate  the  ceremonial  law; 
requiring  those  who  resorted  to  him  to  leave  their  present 
mode  of  worship,  which  consisted  in  types  and  shadows,  in 
order  that  they  might  embrace  that  truth  which  was  the 
spiritual  substance  of  their  religion.  3.  Inasmuch,  there- 
fore, as  he  'preaclied  in  the  wilderness,  he  haptizcd  there. 
The  Jews  being  accustomed  to  the  use  of  water  as  an 
emblem  of  purification,  it  was  noio  used,  and  they  were 
directed  to  look  to  one  who  should  soon  come,  who  should 
cleanse  their  hearts  by  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
4.  John  expressly  representing  the  mode  which  he  prac- 
ticed, as  a  type  of  the  Spirit's  baptism,  distinctly  settled  the 
nature  of  that  mode.  5.  The  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
being  uniformly  represented  as  an  effusion  or  pouring  out, 
John  could  only  use  water  in  the  same  way,  as  the  sign  and 
the  thing  signified  must  in  some  particulars  agree.  6.  Our 
Lord  Jesus  was  baptized  by  John,  in  order  to  anoint  him 
before  the  people,  to  be  ^  a  High-Priest  for  ever  after  the 
order  of  Melchisedek.'  7.  The  high-priests  were  anointed 
by  washing  and  hj pouring  oil  upon  their  heads.  8.  Christ 
was  anointed  by  the  pouring  of  water,  and  the  descent  of  the 
Spirit  in  bodily  shapp  upon  his  head,  thus  giving  the  double 
testimony  of  God  and  man  that  this  was  indeed  the  Mes- 
siah.    Thus  I  think  we  have  settled  the  question  as  to  the 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  211 

mode  of  Jolm's  baptism,   and  also  answered  tlie  question 
why  and  how  our  Saviour  was  baptized." 

Whilst  Mr.  Mason  was  stating  these  propositions,  a  gentle- 
man arose  near  the  middle  of  the  audience,  and  when  Mr. 
Mason  concluded  he  advanced  a  few  steps,  and  said : 

'^  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  few  questions,  Mr.  Mason,  if 
you  will  permit  me  to  do  so." 

^'Certainly,  sir,"  replied  Mr.  Mason.  ''I  will  take  plea- 
sure in  answering  any  inquiry,  if  I  am  able," 

The  gentleman  advanced  toward  the  altar,  and  was  recog- 
nized by  Theophilus  and  introduced  to  the  pastor  as  the 
Rev.  Mr.  Battle,-  of  whose  coming  we  have  already  notified 
the  reader.  His  manner  was  exceedingly  courteous  and 
confident,  as  he  seated  himself  opposite  to  the  Methodist 
minister,  and  prepared  to  interrogate  him. 

^'I  have  heard  your  remarks  this  evening,  Mr.  Mason, 
having  arrived  in  your  village  a  few  moments  before  your 
meeting  began.  I  would  like  to  ask  you  a  few  questions,  as 
you  are  seeking  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus.  You  have  said  that 
Christ  was  not  baptized  to  set  us  an  example,  because  by  his 
baptism  in  his  own  name  he  would  necessarily  lead  the  peo- 
ple to  believe  that  he  was  his  own  Saviour.  Now,  sir,  will 
you  tell  me  whether  Christ  did  not  partaJ^e  of  the  Lord's 
supper,  which  he  declared  to  be  his  body  and  blood  ?  And 
if  he  partook  of  that,  according  to  your  theory,  he  owned 
that  hy  the  shedding  of  his  blood  arid  the  death  of  his  body 
he  was  himself  saved!" 

This  question  was  followed  by  a  very  perceptible  air  of 
triumph  on  the  countenances  of  the  Baptist  people 
present.  They  could  scarcely  repress  an  audible  expression 
of  their  satisfaction.  Mr.  Mason,  however,  immediately 
replied  : 

^'  You  must  first  tell  me,  Mr.  Battle,  whether  you  believe 
that  Christ  did  partake  of  the  supper ;  and  if  this  is  your 


212 


OR, 


opinion,  I  desire  you  to  give  me  the  passage  of  Scripture 
upon  which  it  is  founded/' 

'^Very  well,  sir/'  replied  Mr.  Battle,  ^^I  am  prepared 
with  a  '  Thus  saith  the  Lord.'  Our  Saviour  sent  his  dis- 
ciples to  make  provision  for  the  supper,  and  when  they  were 
assembled,  he  addressed  them,  as  Luke  tells  us  in  the 
twenty-second  chapter  :  ^And  when  the  hour  was  come,  he 
sat  down,  and  the  twelve  apostles  with  him.  And  he  said 
unto  them.  With  desire  I  have  desired  to  eat  this  Passover  (or 
supper)  ivith  you,  before  I  suffer.'  Here,  then,  he  did  eat 
with  his  apostles  the  supper  which  he  instituted  in  the 
Church.  If  Christ,  then,  ate  of  the  sacrament  of  the 
supper,  you  must  either  admit  that  this  act  was  chargeable 
with  the  absurdities  which  you  have  laid  at  the  door  of  his 
baptism,  or  abandon  your  position." 

"Do  not  draw  your  conclusions  before  you  have  proved 
your  premises,  Mr.  Battle,"  replied  Mr.  Mason.  "You  say 
that  Christ  ate  the  passover,  and  that  the  institutions  are 
the  same.  There  lies  your  error :  Christ  ate  the  Passover, 
not  the  su2)per  which  he  instituted." 

"  But  you  have  forgotten,  Mr.  Mason,  that  the  Paschal 
Supper  was  the  thing  which  he  appointed,  and  that  he 
changed  it  from  the  Passover  to  the  Christian  sacrament." 

"  Very  true,  Mr.  Battle,  he  did  appoint  the  Passover,  and 
after  he  and  his  disciples  had  eaten  it,  then  he  instituted  the 
Christian  sacrament." 

"  Where  do  you  find  that  the  Lord's  Supper  was  appointed 
after  the  Paschal  feast  ?" 

"  In  the  very  passage  you  have  quoted,  Mr.  Battle,  for 
the  Evangelist  says  in  the  following  verses  :  'And  he  took 
the  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  said,  Take  this,  and  divide  it 
among  yourselves,  for  I  say  unto  you,  I  will  not  drink  of  the 
fruit  of  the  vine  until  the  kingdom  of  God  shall  come.' " 

*'  But  still  he  drank  of  the  wine,  whilst  he  stated  that  he 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  213 

would  do  so  no  more,  until  lie  drank  it  in  tlie  kingdom  of 
God.'' 

"  Your  statement  is  flatly  contradicted  by  the  Scriptures, 
Mr.  Battle,  for  a  few  verses  below  those  already  quoted,  the 
Evangelist  says  he  took  the  cup  after  supper,  and  distributed 
it  to  the  twelve.  There  is  not  a  shadow  of  proof  that  Christ 
ate  the  bread  or  drank  the  wine,  any  part  of  either,  which 
he  blessed  in  the  institution  of  the  supper.  He  ate  the 
Passover  with  his  apostles,  and  after  they  had  eaten  of  the 
lamb,  then  the  sacrament  of  the  supper  was  instituted,  of 
which  the  apostles  alone  partook,  so  that  the  difficulty  which 
you  imagined  to  exist  is  not  there.  And  since  you  have 
called  attention  to  it,  I  would  like  to  know  why  Christ, 
having,  as  you  say,  set  us  the  example,  and  commanded  us 
to  follow  it,  in  baptism,  did  not  set  us  the  example  in  par- 
taking of  the  other  institution — the  Lord's  supper.^' 

^'  I  say  he  did  do  so,  Mr.  Mason. '^ 

"But  the  Scriptures  say  he  did  not,  Mr.  Battle,  and  I 
cannot  take  your  word  when  the  Bible  contradicts  you.'^ 

"  It  is  no  use  to  argue  with  you,  Mr.  Mason,  if  you  have 
determined  not  to  be  convinced.'' 

"  Surely  I  will  not  take  your  opinion  when  it  is  plainly 
contrary  to  the  Bible.  Show  me  the  place  where  it  says 
Christ  ate  of  the  bread  and  drank  of  the  wine  which  he  had 
blessed,  after  the  Passover  supper,  and  I  will  acknowledge 
my  error.'' 

"  I  think  I  have  already  shown  you  enough  to  convince 
any  one,  but  I  will  not  insist  upon  this  opinion.  You  have 
quoted  Robert  Hall ;  do  you  not  know  that  he  was  a  General 
Baptist,  and  practiced  mixed  communion  ?  His  arguments 
about  John's  baptism  are  of  no  weight  whatever  with  us." 

"  The  more's  the  pity,  Mr.  Battle,  for  he  was  the  greatest 
man  you  ever  had.  You  ought,  however,  to  answer  his 
arguments   before  you  reject  them.     I   have  quoted  Gale, 


214  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

Carson,  Fullerj  and  Hall,  in  the  same  way  that  you  quote 
Pedobaptist  writers.  It  is  your  custom  to  represent  Pedo- 
lapiisfs  as  good  witnesses  against  themselves,  and  on  the 
same  principle  I  bring  the  Baptists  into  collision  with  each 
other/' 

"  Very  well,  Mr.  Mason,  you  have  the  right  to  do  so,  but 
at  the  same  time  you  must  remember  that  we  call  no  man 
master  except  Christ;  his  commandments  we  follow,  his 
teachings  we  abide  by;  but  no  man,  no  number  of  men, 
however  great  and  good,  can  bind  our  consciences  with 
man-made  creeds  and  human  ordinances,  appointed  of  men, 
not  of  Grod.  The  Bible  is  oiw  creed,  and  our  Book  of  Dis- 
cipline.    We  accept  no  other.'' 

''  You  have  accepted  others,  Mr.  Battle,  as  I  am  prepared 
to  prove ;  for  it  so  happens  that  I  have  a  Baptist  Discipline 
in  my  pocket,  which  has  been  adopted  by  your  churches  in 
this  country.  But  you  are  drawing  me  away  from  the  sub- 
ject which  I  am  investigating.  At  the  proper  time,  I  will 
show  you  something  about  the  creeds,  discij)lines,  and  books 
of  'human  appointment'  which  are  as  much  standards  in 
your  churches  as  in  ours." 

"  You  will  never  prove  that,  Mr.  Mason,"  replied  Mr. 
Battle. 

'^  We  shall  see  at  the  proper  time  and  place,"  said  Mr. 
Mason.  ''And  now,  Theophilus,"  he  continued,  "if  Mr. 
Battle  has  no  further  questions  to  ask,  I  shall  proceed  to 
show  more  fully  the  agreement  between  the  mode  of  water 
baptism  and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  In  order  to 
bring  the  subject  clearly  before  us,  however,  we  must  collect 
those  passages  in  which  the  mode  of  spiritual  baptism  is 
expressed,  and  placed  in  the  relation  to  water  baptism  of  the 
thing  signified,  while  water  baptism  is  the  sign.  I  shall 
read  these  passages  as  they  occur,  beginning  with  the  pro- 
phecy of  Joel :  'And  it  shall  come  to  pass  afterward,  that  I 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  215 

\v'i\\  jwur  Old  7)17/  Sj^irit  ui)Oii  all  flesli ;  and  your  sons  and 
your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  your  old  men  shall  dream 
dreams,  your  young  men  shall  see  visions.  And  also  upon 
the  servants  and  upon  the  handmaids  in  those  days  will  I 
pon7-  out  my  Spirit.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  whoso- 
ever shall  call  on  the  name  of  the  Lord  shall  be  delivered  : 
for  in  Mount  Zion,  and  in  Jerusalem,  shall  be  deliverance, 
as  the  Lord  hath  said,  and  in  the  remnant  whom  the  Lord 
shall  call.'  Joel  ii.  28,  29,  32.  ^  I  indeed  baptize  you  with 
water  unto  repentance ;  but  he  that  cometh  after  me  is 
mightier  than  I,  whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  bear;  he 
shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire.' 
Matthew  iii.  11.  '  I  indeed  have  baptized  you  with  water ; 
but  he  shall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy  Ghost.'  Mark  i.  8. 
^  John  answered,  saying  unto  them  all,  I  indeed  baptize  you 
with  water )  but  one  mightier  than  I  cometh,  the  latchet  of 
whose  shoes  I  am  not  worthy  to  unloose ;  he  shall  baptize 
you  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  with  fire.'  Luke  iii.  16. 
^And  John  bare  record,  saying,  I  saw  the  Spirit  descending 
from  heaven  like  a  dove,  and  it  abode  upon  him.  And  I 
knew  him  not;  but  he  that  sent  me  to  baptize  with  water, 
the  same  said  unto  me,  Upon  whom  thou  shalt  see  the  Spirit 
descending,  and  remaining  on  him,  the  same  is  he  which 
baptizeth  icith  the  Holy  Ghost.'  John  i.  32,  33.  Jesus  '  being 
assembled  together  with  them,  commanded  them  that  they 
should  not  depart  from  Jerusalem,  but  wait  for  the  promise 
of  the  Father,  which,  saith  he,  ye  have  heard  of  me;  for 
John  truly  baptized  with  luater,  but  ye  shall  be  baptized 
with  the  Holy  Ghost  not  many  days  hence.  But  ye  shall 
receive  power,  after  that  the  Holy  Ghost  is  come  upon  you, 
and  ye  shall  be  witnesses  unto  me,  both  in  Jerusalem,  and 
in  all  Judea,  and  in  Samaria,  and  unto  the  uttermost  parts 
of  the  earth.'  Acts  i.  4,  5,  8.  ^  And  when  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost was  fully  come,  they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one 


216  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

place.  And  suddenly  there  came  a  sound  from  heaven  as  of 
a  rushing  mighty  wind,  and  it  filled  all  the  house  where 
they  were  sitting.  And  there  appeared  unto  them  cloven 
tonguesy  like  as  of  fire,  and  it  sat  ujoo^i  each  of  them.  And 
they  were  all  filled  with  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  began  to  speak 
with  other  tongues,  as  the  Spirit  gave  them  utterance. 
Peter,  standing  up  with  the  eleven,  lifted  up  his  voice,  and 
said  unto  them.  Ye  men  of  Judea,  and  all  ye  that  dwell  at 
Jerusalem,  be  this  known  unto  you,  and  hearken  to  my 
words  j  for  these  are  not  drunken,  as  ye  suppose,  seeing  it  is 
but  the  third  hour  of  the  day.  But  this  is  that  lahich  was 
spohen  hy  the  2^rophet  Joel :  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  saitli 
Grod,  1 10  ill  POUR  OUT  OF  MY  SpiRiT  upon  all  flesh  :  and  your 
sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,  and  your  young 
men  shall  see  visions,  and  your  old  men  shall  dream  dreams, 
and  on  my  servants  and  on  my  handmaidens  /  will  POUR, 
OUT  in  those  days  of  my  Spirit.  Therefore,  he  (Jesus) 
being  by  the  right  hand  of  Grod  exalted,  and  having  received 
of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  he  hath  shed 
FORTH  this  which  ye  now  see  and  hear.'  Acts  ii.  1,  5,  14, 
18,  33.  ^  While  Peter  yet  spake  these  words,  the  Holy 
Ghost  FELL  on  all  them  which  heard  the  ivord.  And  they 
of  the  circumcision  which  believed  were  astonished,  as  many 
as  came  with  Peter,  because  that  on  the  G-entiles  also  was 
POURED  OUT  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  they  heard 
them  speak  with  tongues,  and  magnify  God.  Then  answered 
Peter,  Can  any  man  forbid  water,  that  these  should  not  be 
baptized,  which  have  received  the  Holy  Ghost  as  well  as  we  V 
Acts  X.  44,  47.  Peter,  relating  this  to  the  Jews,  says : 
^And  as  I  began  to  speak,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  them,  as 
on  us  at  the  beginning.  Tlien  remembered  I  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  how  that  he  said,  John  indeed  baptized  with  water, 
but  ye  shall  be  baptized  icith  the  Holy  Ghost.  Forasmuch, 
then,  as  God  gave  them  the  like  gift  as  he  did  unto  us,  who 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  217 

believed  on  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  what  was  I,  that  I  could 
withstand  God  ?'  Acts  xi.  15,  17. 

'^  Here  we  have  proj^hecy  and  histori/  united,  both  agreeing 
in  testimony  to  the  mode  of  Scripture  baptism.     The  pro- 
phet Joel  tells  us  that  God  would,  in  the  latter  days,  pour 
out  his  Spirit.     John  the  Baptist  tells  us  that  Jesus  would 
baptize  with  the  Holi/  Spirit,  in  token  of  which  he  haptized 
icith   water.      Christ    tells    his    disciples    to    wait    for   the 
promise  of  the  Father,  for  that  like  as  John  baptized  with 
icater,  they  should  be  baptized  with  the  IIolij  Ghost.     On 
the  day  of  Pentecost  the  Holy  Spirit  descended  from  heaven, 
and  filled  the  disciples.     Peter  says  on  that  occasion  that 
the    prophecy    of  Joel    was    fulfilled;    that    the  Spirit  was 
poured  out  upon    them.     At  the    house  of   Cornelius,  the 
Holy  Spirit /e//  on  those  who  heard  the  word,  as  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost,  and  Peter  remembers  the  words  of  Christ,  who 
promised  that  they  should  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Now,  can    any  thing  be  rendered  plainer?     Does    not  our 
Saviour,  John  the  Baptist,  and  the  Apostle  Peter  say  that 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Holy  Ghost  is  the  ha^nism  of  the 
Holy    Ghost?     And    do    they  not    all    three    say  that    the 
haptism  of  John  was  typical  of  i\ih  pouring  out  of  the  Holy 
Spirit?     That  the    two  baptisms  were    placed    in   contrast, 
no  one  can  deny.     But  wherein  did  the  difference  consist  ? 
Was  it  in  the  mode  ?     Then  there  are  tico  modes  of  baptism, 
for  the  mode  of  the  Spirit's  baptism  is  indisputable.     Was 
it  in  the  elements  of  baptism  ?     Then  the  mode  must  be  one, 
and  as  that  mode  is  determined  beyond  a  shadow  of  doubt, 
the  word  of  God  has  settled  the  question.     If  the  Baptists 
admit  that  there  are  two  modes,  their  cause  is  lost.     If  they 
affirm  that  the  mode  of  spiritual    baptism  is  the  mode  of 
water  baptism,  then    they  acknowledge  pouring  to  be    the 
pioper    mode.     There   is    no    escape    from    this    argument. 
God  never  promised  to  immerse  anyone  in  his  Spirit;  he 
10 


218  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

promised  to  pour  out  his  Spirit  upon  the  people.  Tliis 
pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  called  by  John,  Peter,  and  our 
Saviour  himself,  baptism.  There  are/owr  things  essential 
to  the  ordinance  of  baptism — an  administrator,  a  subject,  an 
element,  and  a  mode.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  God  was 
the  administrator,  the  disciples  the  subjects,  the  Holy  Spirit 
the  element,  srnd  pouring  the  mode.  This  is  called  baptism 
by  the  inspired  writers,  and  our  blessed  Lord  himself. 
John's  ordinance  was  contrasted  with  this,  but  in  what  par- 
ticulars ?  Certainly  he  was  the  administrator — he  had  sub- 
jects, an  element,  and  a  mode.  Was  the  point  of  contrast 
only  in  the  administrator  ?  Then  the  other  three  particu- 
lars agreed.  Was  it  in  the  subjects  ?  This  John  denies,  for 
he  says,  I  baptize  you  with  water,  but  he  shall  baptize  you 
with  the  Holy  Ghost;  the  subjects  then  were  the  same. 
.Was  it  in  the  mode  ?  Then  there  are  two  valid  modes  of 
baptism.  But  who  can  doubt  where  the  points  of  contrast 
are  ?  I,  John,  and  he,  Christ — here  are  the  administrators  ; 
I  with  loater,  he  with  the  Holy  Spirit — here  are  the  elements. 
In  the  other  two  respects  the  two  baptisms  were  the  same. 

^^  Here,  then,  the  sincere  inquirer  may  have  all  his  doubts 
solved.  He  need  not  wander  in  the  mazes  of  heathen 
poetry;  he  is  independent  of  Homer  and  Lycophron,  of 
Strabo  and  Aristotle :  Jesus  Christ  has  fixed  the  sense  in 
which  his  commandment  is  to  be  understood,  and  no  man 
need  err  in  the  interpretation  of  his  will.^' 

'^  Permit  me  to  ask  you  if  John  did  not  say  he  baptized 
in  water,  and  that  Christ  would  baptize  in  the  Holy  Spirit  ?" 
said  Mr.  Battle. 

"Ah  !  you  are  returning  to  prepositions,  Mr.  Battle,"  re- 
plied Mr.  Mason.  "  Before  I  answer  your  question,  let  me 
ask  you  one.  Suppose  the  sacred  writers  had  intended  to 
tell  us  that  John  baptized  with  water :  pray  tell  me  what 
Greeh preposition  they  could  have  used  to  express  itT^ 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  219 

"  "Well,  I  suppose  they  might  have  used  dnh  instead  of 
h,"  said  Mr.  B. 

^'But  the  usual  sense  of  dirb  is  from,  Mr.  Battle." 

'^Or  they  might  have  used  ovv;  that  always  means  ivith." 

"  Well,  then,  Mr.  Battle,  show  me  a  place  in  the  Greek 
Testament  where  the  preposition  ovv  is  used  to  express  the 
application  of  a  fluid  to  a  person  or  thing." 

"  The  word  means  with,  Mr.  Mason,  and  it  would  express 
the  meaning  of  our  English  word." 

''But  you  forget,  sir,  that  the  English  word  ivitJi  has 
various  meanings.  For  instance  :  Thomas  is  walking  ivith 
James.     Surely  James  is  not  a  fluid  applied  to  Thomas  I" 

''  Well,  there  are  several  other  words  which  might  express 
the  same  sense  :  dta,  vno,  and  several  others. 

"  Yes,  sir,  and  vno  generally  means  under,  whilst  6ca  is 
rarely  rendered  with,  and  neve)-  in  the  sense  of  applying  a 
fluid  to  a  person  or  thing.  But  why  do  you  object  to  the  use 
of  ^v  ?" 

"  I  object  to  translating  it  tuith,  because  it  means  in,"  re- 
plied Mr.  Battle. 

''And  3^et,  sir,  you  have  given  us  nothing  to  take  its  place 
— no  word  you  have  mentioned,  or  can  mention,  is  free  from 
your  objection.  Therefore,  according  to  your  teaching,  it 
was  impossihlc  for  the  Evangelists  to  tell  us  that  John  bap- 
tized ?t'iVA  water !  Thus  you  must  expel  an  iVZea  from  the 
Greek  language  in  order  to  save  immersion  I  No,  Mr.  Bat- 
tle, I  will  not  charge  you  with  ignorance  of  the  language, 
but  I  will  say  that  a  little  attention  to  this  subject  will  con- 
vince you  that  eI<;  and  ev  are  the  only  prepositions  that  could 
have  been  used  in  the  passage  in  question,  and  unless  you 
assert  that  neither  of  these  can  express  the  application  of 
water  to  a  person,  you  must  abandon  the  argument.  I  make 
no  issue  upon  such  a  narrow  foundation  as  a  preposition — no 
man  can  do  so  who  is  earnestly  seeking  the  truth,  and  knows 


220  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

in  what  a  logical  argument  consists.  If  I  mention  tlie  pre- 
positions at  all,  it  is  because  immersionists  make  them  pro- 
minent proofs  of  their  positions." 

^'  But  I  am  not  satisfied  with  your  explanation  of  the  bap- 
tism of  the  Holy  Ghost  on  the  day  of  the  Pentecost.  The 
Spirit  filled  the  house,  and  they  were  immersed  in  the  Spirit : 
so  I  understand  it.'' 

"And  in  so  understanding  it,  Mr.  Battle,  you  not  only  con- 
tradict the  word  of  God,  but  you  make  the  murderous  Jews 
to  be  equally  baptized  with  the  disciples.  The  sacred  writer 
does  not  say  that  the  Spirit  filled  the  house,  but  the  sound 
filled  the  house,  and  the  Spirit  filled  the  apostles,  sitting 
upon  them  in  the  shape  of  cloven  tongues,  like  as  of  fire. 
The  murderers  of  Christ,  were  in  the  house,  and  Peter 
charges  them  with  the  crime :  if  the  Spirit  filled  the  house, 
and  by  that  means  the  disciples  were  immersed,  then  these 
Jews  were  immersed  in  the  Spirit  also  !  Such  is  the  absurd- 
ity of  this  attempt  at  evasion.  It  would  be  far  better  to 
call  upon  Homer  and  Milton,  for  by  their  aid  j^oetical  ex- 
pressions might  be  found  to  warrant  you  in  overthrowing 
the  narrative  of  the  inspired  penman. 

'^  It  is  indeed  strange  that  pouring  and  sprinlding  should 
be  such  figurative,  poetical  subjects.  The  author  of  '  Theo- 
dosia'  says  it  was  not  a  literal  baptism  which  occurred 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  but  only  a  swalloiving  up  or  over- 
whelming of  the  apostles  in  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit !  ^  It  is  a  metaphor  V  Here  is  the  escape  from  the 
unanswerable  argument.  Every  thing  that  looks  like  im,- 
'mersion  must  be  construed  literally — every  thing  that  favors 
pouring  is  a  metaphor,  a  beautiful  hyperbole,  a  figure  of 
speech  !  To  reason  with  such  unscrupulous  dialecticians  is 
a  loss  of  time  and  labor.  They  are  determined  to  upset  all 
rules  of  interpretation,  to  cut  down,  enlarge,  or  destroy  the 
sense  of  God's  word  in  order  to  save  their  cause.     Poetry  is 


THE     MAJESTY    OF     TRUTH.  221 

the  last  resort — when  every  thing  else  fails,  metaphors  and 
tropes  come  to  their  relief.  They  will  make  Christ  and  his 
apostles  use  the  language  of  fiction  if  they  do  not  support 
immersion.  They  will  make  distinctions  where  there  are  no 
differences,  and  say  that  one  can  be  baptized  with  the  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit,  but  not  with  the  Spirit  himself!  And 
if  you  bring  them  to  the  language  of  the  plain  word  of  God, 
they  will  not  hesitate  to  draw  upon  the  resources  of  infidel- 
ity— deriding  the  prominent  truths  of  our  religion,  and  ren- 
dering the  Bible  an  absurd  and  incomprehensible  mass  of 
fables  !  Such  is  the  course  of  the  author  of  '  Theodosia/ 
who  unites  in  his  characters  all  the  elements  of  a  miserable 
logic  and  an  extravagant  skepticism.  If  one  could  be  im- 
mersed in  the  Spirit  of  God,  they  would  have  the  narrative 
in  Acts  to  be  literal ;  but  as  it  is  said  to  be  a  j^ouring  out  of 
the  Spirit,  therefore  it  is  not  a  literal  baptism  !  '  The  Spirit 
of  God,'  says  the  author  of  this  book,  '  is  everywhere  pre- 
sent ;  therefore  the  literal  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  is  im- 
possible.' x\nd  yet  there  was  something  poured  out — what 
was  it  ?  Why,  the  influences  of  the  Spirit !  And  are  not 
the  influences  of  the  Spirit  as  evidently  omnipresent  as  the 
Spirit  himself?  How  then  could  they  be  poured  out? 
Mysterious  indeed  is  the  nature  of  the  All  wise  God — his 
ways  are  past  finding  out,  and  his  wisdom  unsearchable — but 
when  we  enter  the  territory  of  the  infidel,  and  demand,  how 
can  the  Spirit  of  God  be  poured  upon  his  people  ?  we  need 
but  take  one  step  more,  and  ask,  hoio  does  God  exist?  and  if 
we  refuse  to  believe  until  we  comprehend  the  Divine  exist- 
ence, the  lowest  caverns  of  atheistical  despair  are  open  for 
our  reception.'' 

''Do  I  understand  you  to  say  that  '  Theodosia'  denies  the 
literal  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit  ?"  asked  Theophilus. 
''  Yes,  the  denial  is  made  in  the  plainest  terms." 
^'  Well,"  replied  Theophilus,  "■  if  that  is  the  only  argu- 


^2  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

meut  to  be  offered  against  your  views,  I  am  free  to  say  tliat 
the  question  between  you  is  not  the  mode  of  baptism,  but 
the  truth  of  the  Christian  religion.  If  there  is  no  literal  bap- 
tism of  the  Spirit,  there  is  no  Christianity.  If  there  is  no 
literal  conversion,  no  real  change,  no  direct  operation  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men,  then  it  is  folly  to  talk  of 
Christ  being  the  Saviour  of  men.  But  I  beg  of  you,  Mr. 
Mason,  do  not  spend  time  in  answering  such  profane  cavils. 
Whenever  a  man  is  willing  to  sacrifice  the  very  groundwork 
of  Christianity,  in  order  to  establish  a  sectarian  opinion,  I 
would  no  sooner  think  of  reasoning  with  him  than  with  a 
block  of  stone.  His  heart  cannot  be  influenced  by  the 
truth,  who  betrays  the  fundamental  doctrines  of  religion  to 
accomplish  a  selfish  purpose.  I  am  exceedingly  pleased  with 
your  explanation  of  the  ministry  of  John  the  Baptist,  and 
the  reason  of  our  Saviour's  baptism.  Thus  far  I  feel  con- 
vinced that  the  mode  of  water  baptism  which  was  practiced 
by  John  was  the  type  of  the  Spirit's  baptism  to  which  he 
constantly  alluded.  I  would  like  to  hear  your  views  about 
the  design  of  water  baptism  as  a  Christian  ordinance." 

''  In  order  to  do  so,  Theophilus,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  I 
must  pursue  the  same  course  already  taken,  and  present  you 
a  connection  between  the  pi-oj^hecT/  of  the  Old  Testament 
and  the  Mstor?/  of  the  New.  Although  I  shall  have  another 
use  for  these  scriptural  evidences,  when  I  come  to  speak  of 
the  suhjects  of  the  ordinance,  it  will  be  necessary,  first,  to 
give  them  as  illustrative  of  the  general  meaning  and  design 
of  baptism.  I  shall  give  these  quotations  in  the  order  in 
which  they  occur  in  Scripture,  beginning  with  the  prophecy. 
'  Behold,  the  days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a 
NEW  COVENANT  with  the  house  of  Israel,  and  the  house  of 
Judah ;  not  according  to  the  covenant  which  I  made  with 
their  fathers  in  the  day  that  I  took  them  by  the  hand  to 
bring  them  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  which  my  covenant 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  223 

they  brake^  although  I  was  a  husband  unto  them,  saith  the 
Lord.  liut  this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I  will  make  with 
■  the  house  of  Israel :  iVfter  those  days,  saith  the  Lord,  I  will 
put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write  it  in  their 
hearts ;  and  w^ill  be  their  God,  and  they  shall  be  my  people.' 
Jeremiah  xxxi.  31-33.  'And  he  took  bread,  and  gave 
thanks,  and  brake  it,  and  gave  unto  them,  saying.  This  is  my 
body  which  is  given  for  you  :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me. 
Likewise  also  the  cup  after  supper,  saying.  This  cuj)  is  the 
NEW  TESTAMENT  (or  COVENANT)  ill  my  hlood,  icliicli  is  sJied 
for  you.'  Luke  xxii.  19,  20.  'And  for  this  cause  he  is  the 
mediator  of  the  new  testament,  (or  covenant,)  that  by 
means  of  death,  for  the  redemption  of  the  transgressions 
that  were  under  the  first  testament,  (or  covenant,)  they 
which  are  called  might  receive  the  promise  of  eternal  inher- 
itance.'    Hebrews  ix.  15. 

"  You  must  remember,  Theophilus,  that  when  Christ  is 
said  to  be  the  Mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  the  law,  or  Sina- 
itic  covenant,  is  the  object  of  contrast.  The  blessings  j)^'^- 
mised  to  Abraham  are  secured  by  the  blood  of  Christ.  This 
I  hope  to  prove  when  we  examine  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism. For  the  present,  then,  keep  the  fact  in  view,  that 
when  St.  Paul  speaks  of  the  nciv  covenant,  the  contrast  is 
with  the  Sinaitic  covenant  only.  To  avoid  confusion  of 
terms,  I  shall  use  the  words  old  and  neiv  dispensation. 
St.  Paul,  in  the  third  chapter  of  the  letter  to  the  G-ala- 
tians,  says:  'iVnd  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  which 
was  confirmed  he/ore  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which 
was  four  hundred  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  Grod  of  none  effect.  For  if 
the  inheritance  be  of  the  law,  it  is  no  more  of  promise ; 
but  God  gave  it  to  Abraham  by  promise.'  We  learn, 
then,  that  the  covenant  was  first  made  with  Abraham. 
Now,  by  turning  to  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Genesis  we  find 


224  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

the  promise  wliich  the  Lord  made  to  Abraham.  Iji  the  fif- 
teenth chapter  the  promise  is  renewed ;  and  in  the  seven- 
teenth chapter  the  covenant  is  made,  and  the  seal  affixed  to 
it.  '  This  is  my  covenant  that  ye  shall  keep  between  me 
and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  :  Every  man-child  among 
you  shall  he  circumcised.'  St.  Paul,  in  Romans,  fourth 
chapter,  declares,  'And  he  (Abraham)  received  the  SIGN  of 
circumcision,  A  SEAL  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith  which 
he  then  had,  being  uncircumcised.^  Then  we  learn  that  cir- 
cumcision was  the  sign  and  seal  under  the  okl  dispensation. 
Now  we  turn  to  Galatians  again,  and  Paul  tells  us  :  '  For  ye 
are  all  the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Christ  Jesus.  For  'as 
many  of  you  as  have  heen  BAPTIZED  into  Christ,  have  put 
on  Chi'ist.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ]  for  ye  are 
all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's,  then  are  ye 
Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.' 
Galatians  iii.  26,  29.  Now  the  facts  are  before  us.  Under 
the  old  dispensation,  circumcision  was  the  sign  and  the  seal. 
Under  the  neiv  dispensation,  bajytis^n  is  the  sign  and  the  seal. 
The  old  dispensation  had  respect  to  Abraham  and  his  seed. 
The  new  dispensation  has  respect  to  all  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham and  their  seed — not  his  natural  posterity  alone,  but  all 
those  who  are  hy  faith  his  seed.  The  seal  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation was  Si  partial  one,  being  delivered  only  to  the  male 
children  of  Abraham ;  but  under  the  7ieio  dispensation  the 
seal  is  given  to  all  alike ;  for  '  there  is  neither  male  nor 
female,'  says  the  apostle — '  all  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus.'  The 
*  putting  on  of  Christ,'  or  the  initiation  under  the  neiv  dispen- 
sation, he  tells  us  is  done  by  being  '  baptized  into  Christ.' 

"  Here,  then,  Theophilus,  we  have  the  answer  to  your 
question  :  Baptism  is  now  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  covenant 
made  in  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  our  Mediator  with  God. 
It  is  the  sign  of  that  baptism  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  which 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  225 

the  law  of  God  is  written  in  our  hearts ;  it  is  a  seal  of  the 
promise  by  which  we  are  encouraged  to  trust  in  the  Lord  for 
the  accomplishment  of  this  work.  Now  let  us  return  to  the 
passage  in  Acts  which  we  have  been  considering.  After 
the  sermon  which  Peter  delivered,  many  of  the  Jews  were 
deeply  convicted  of  their  sins,  and  said,  '  Men  and  brethren, 
what  shall  we  do  V  Pet-er  replied  :  '  Repent,  and  be  bap- 
tized, every  one  of  you,  in  the  name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost.'  It  would  seem  that  he  indicated  a  special  order  in 
which  the  commandment  was  to  be  obeyed.  You  know, 
Theophilus,  that  one  division  of  the  Baptist  Church  strenu- 
ously labor  to  establish  this  advice  of  Peter  as  the  universal 
law  of  the  gospel.  They  say  we  have,  1st,  Repentance,  or 
reformation.  2d,  Baptism.  3d,  Remission  of  sins.  The 
fourth  item,  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  they  omit,  assum- 
ing that  it  was  a  consequence  which  was  only  temporary, 
not  needed  in  succeeding  ages.  I  do  not  grant  their  posi- 
tion, of  course,  that  this  is  the  gospel  law;  yet  I  am 
prepared  to  admit  that  this  was  the  order  in  this  particular 
case.  But  there  was  a  reason  for  it.  There  was  a  cause 
which  rendered  this  exhortation  necessary.  I  am  willing  to 
admit  that  if  these  conscience-smitten  and  awakened  Jews 
had  not  been  baptized,  they  would  not  have  received  remis- 
sion of  sins.  But  let  us  ascertain  the  reason  why  this  was 
so.  AVe  must  remember  that  Peter  was  addressing  the 
Jeivs  alone ;  at  that  time  he  did  not  know  that  the  Gentiles 
were  to  be  partakers  of  this  gospel.  Indeed,  so  firmly  was 
he  convinced  that  the  gospel  was  restricted  to  the  Jews,  that 
it  was  necessary  to  convince  him  of  the  contrary  by  the 
vision  of  the  sheet  let  down  from  heaven.  This  account  we 
find  in  the  tenth  chapter  of  the  Acts.  Peter,  then,  was 
speaking  to  the  Jews  :  ^  Ye  men  of  Israel,'  he  says — and 
after  declaring  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  man  approved 
10* 


226  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

of  Grod  among  them,  lie  continues — liim  ^ye  have  takeuj 
and  hy  loickcd  hands  have  cribcified  and  slain.'  He  charges 
them  with  being  the  murderers  of  Christ.  They  had  per- 
petrated a  heinous  crime — crucified  the  Lord  of  glory — 
denying  that  he  was  the  Christ,  and  branding  him  as  an 
impostor  and  a  malefactor.  They  were  not  only  under  the 
old  covenant,  but  they  had,  stained  their  hands  in  the  blood 
of  the  Mediator  of  the  7ieiv.  They  had  then  a  double  work 
to  perform  :  they  had  to  repent  of  their  sins  which  they  had 
committed  in  common  with  others,  and  they  had  to  make 
public  atonement  for  the  murder  of  Christ.  Having  denied 
that  he  was  the  Messiah  publicly  at  the  bar  of  Pilate,  they 
must  now  as  publicly  acknowledge  him  to  be  the  true  Christ, 
by  being  baptized  in  his  name.  This  was  all  the  atonement 
they  could  make,  and  therefore  it  was  required  of  them. 
By  this  renunciation  of  their  error,  they  would  not  only 
prove  that  they  were  sincerely  penitent,  but  would  secure 
the  same  gift  of  the  Spirit  which  had  been  bestowed  upon 
the  disciples.  This  I  believe  to  be  the  true  explanation  of 
the  j^assage;  and  they  are  as  greatly  in  error  who  deny  that 
baptism  preceded  remission  of  sins  in  this  case,  as  are  those 
who  contend  that  it  must  ahvai/s  go  before  or  happen  in 
conjunction  with  remission.  It  was  a  special  case,  and 
required  a  special  law. 

"  This  view  of  the  case  would  render  immersion  as  the 
mode  of  their  baptism  well-nigh  impossible.  If  we  grant 
that  there  was  water  enough  in  the  city,  in  the  pools  or  in 
the  baths,  to  immerse  three  thousand  persons ;  if  we  admit 
that  twelve  apostles  could  possibly  immerse  such  a  vast  num- 
ber of  persons;  still,  the  circumstances  which  surrounded 
them  rendered  it  almost  morally  impossible  that  they  could 
have  been  immersed  in  water.  They  had  assembled  out  of 
curiosity,  and  must  have  heard  the  sermon  of  Peter  before 
thev'  could  have  been  candidates  for  baptism.     Then  they 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  227 

must  return  home  for  tlie  necessary  clothing,  assemble  again 
at  some  designated  place,  and  adjourn  to  the  pools  :  all  these 
things  were  necessary  if  immersion  was  the  mode  used. 
And  yet  we  have  not  a  word  of  all  this  in  the  narrative. 
We  are  told  that  the  multitude  came  to  see  and  hear,  when 
the  wonderful  phenomenon  was  known  in  the  city;  but  we 
have  not  a  word  of  testimony  that  they  went  out  from  the 
place  to  the  pool  of  Bethesda,  or  Siloam,  or  anywhere  else, 
in  order  to  be  baptized.  Such  an  extraordinary  spectacle  as 
three  thousand  persons  marching  out  to  the  pools,  in  order 
to  be  baptized,  attended  by  thousands  of  others  who  would 
be  attracted  by  the  novelty  of  a  scene  never  before  witnessed 
in  Jerusalem,  certainly  was  worthy  of  notice  by  the  sacred 
historian.  But  he  does  not  give  us  one  word  of  information 
about  it ;  not  an  expression  that  will  allow  such  a  procedure 
to  be  inferred.  I  am  aware  of  the  fact  that  it  is  impossible 
to  prove  that  there  was  any  place  or  places  suitable  for 
immersion  in  the  city;  or  that  it  was  possible  for  so  small  a 
number  of  men  to  Lmmcrse  so  many  in  one  day.  But  if 
these  difficulties  could  be  satisfactorily  settled,  the  omission 
of  any  expression  which  could  be  construed  into  proof  of 
the  immersion  of  the  converts,  is  positively  inexplicable. 
Surely  there  was  a  necessity  for  such  a  statement  if  the  fact 
occurred.  This  was  the  first  case  of  baptism  performed 
under  the  gospel  dispensation,  and  there  was  a  far  greater 
necessity  to  say  that  it  was  done  in  Siloam  or  Bethesda,  than 
to  state  that  John  baptized  in  Jordan.  It  will  not  do  to 
say  that  it  was  known  that  John  baptized  in  the  river  Jor- 
dan ;  and  therefore  these  were  necessarily  immersed.  For 
if  the  comparison  is  worth  any  thing  at  all,  it  will  prove 
that  John  went  to  Jordan  because  there  was  no  suitable 
place  in  Jerusalem.  Nor  will  it  do  to  say  that  the  citizens 
of  Jerusalem  needed  not  to  be  informed  that  there  were 
places  suitable  for  immersion  there.     Luke  was  not  writing 


228  THEOPHILUS    WALTONj     OR, 

for  the  citizens  of  Jerusalem,  but  for  the  world  at  large, 
who  could  not  be  acquainted  with  the  facts.  Nor  can  it  be 
said  that  it  was  suflacieut  to  state  that  they  were  haptizedy 
without  giving  the  place  and  other  circumstances.  We 
may  as  well  say  that  it  was  not  necessary  even  to  state  that 
they  were  baptized  at  all,  as  that  by  the  same  process  could 
be  inferred  also. 

^^  If  we  give  the  Baptist  rendering  to  the  sentence  which 
the  historian  has  left  us  chronicling  this  important  announce- 
ment, we  shall  see  how  absurd  the  account  appears.  '  Then 
they  that  gladly  received  his  word  were  haptized  f  so  reads 
the  passage.  The  Baptists  would  have  it :  '  Then  they  that 
gladly  received  his  word  were  dipped ;  and  the  same  day 
there  were  added  unto  them  three  thousand  souls.'  They 
were  '•dipped.''  Where?  in  what?  not  in  Jordan,  nor 
Siloam,  nor  Bethesda,  nor  anywhere  else;  for  they  were  not 
dipped  at  all.  This  is  the  only  reasonable  conclusion.  And 
there  is  another  remarkable  fact,  that  there  is  not  a  word 
said  in  the  New  Testament  of  a  Christian  convert  being  bap- 
tized in  a  river,  a  pool,  a  Hank,'  or  any  thing  of  the  sort; 
not  the  slightest  hint  that  any  congregation  adjourned  to 
such  a  place  to  witness  a  baptism  by  immersion.  If  our 
Saviour  had  required  such  a  thing  at  the  hands  of  his 
believing  children,  it  is  absolutely  unaccountable  that  we 
have  no  evidence  that  any  one  of  them  ever  obeyed  him. 

^^We  have  consumed  the  greater  part  of  the  evening, 
Theophilus,  as  I  am  reminded  by  my  watch.  We  shall  meet 
to-morrow  night,  and  continue  our  examination  of  the  New 
Testament  baptism.  I  shall  be  pleased  to  see  you  also,  Mr. 
Battle,  and  to  listen  to  any  thing  you  may  have  to  say.'^ 

The  Baptist  minister  bowed  to  Mr.  Mason,  and,  without 
making  any  reply,  withdrew  with  the  audience. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  229 


CHAPTEE    XVI. 

EVENTS     or     THE     FOLLOWING    DAY 

After  returning  home  on  Tuesday  niglit,  Mr.  Battle  and 
Mr.  Ellis  repaired  to  the  study  at  the  church,  where,  with 
Mr.  Walton,  the  father  of  Theophilus,  they  continued  in 
consultation  until  a  late  hour.  The  result  of  the  interview, 
whatever  it  may  have  been,  did  not  seem  satisfactory  to  the 
parties  concerned.  Mr.  Battle  had  been  driven  from  the 
field  as  effectually  as  Mr.  Ellis  had  been,  and  it  seemed  use- 
less to  endeavor  to  interrupt  the  proceedings  any  further. 
It  was  evident  that  Mr.  Mason  had  the  vantage-ground;  it 
was  fruitless  to  attempt  to  counteract  his  argument  by  cap- 
tious objections.  The  only  course  open  to  Mr.  Battle  was, 
then,  to  challenge  Mr.  Mason  to  meet  him  on  Baptist  pre- 
mises ;  to  bring  him  into  the  classical  authorities,  and  rest  the 
question  of  mode  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Grreek  writers. 
In  pursuance  of  this  design,  Mr.  Battle  prepared  a  note, 
challenging  Mr.  Mason  to  an  examination  of  classical  au- 
thorities at  large.  He  proposed  Friday  evening  as  a  proper 
time  for  this  meeting.  The  note  was  written  late  on  Tues- 
day night,  and  was  dispatched  to  Mr.  Mason  on  Wednesday 
morning. 

Mr.  Ellis,  however,  did  not  seem  confident  of  success  in 
this  effort,  although  he  interposed  no  objection  to  it.  There 
was  evidently,  to  his  mind,  a  better  plan.  If  Theophilus 
could  be  brought  back,  he  was  well  aware  that  with  the  mass 


230  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

of  the  people  all  would  be  restored.  He  felt  that  there  were 
important  results  pending  the  decision  of  this  young  man. 
If,  after  all,  Theophilus  should  declare  that  he  was  yet  in  favor 
of  immersion ;  if  he  could  be  by  any  means  forced  or  per- 
suaded to  unite  with  the  Baptist  Church,  the  evil  would  be 
averted.  He  did  not  question  that  the  aifair  of  Mrs.  Wil- 
liams could  be  brought  to  a  satisfactory  conclusion.  He 
had  determined,  in  his  own  mind,  to  shape  the  decision  in 
reference  to  her  case  in  the  forthcoming  trial.  She  was  old, 
and  therefore  claimed  forbearance  at  their  hands.  She  had 
been  led  off  by  peculiar  circumstances,  such  as  were  not 
likely  to  occur  again.  In  this  view  of  the  case,  then,  he 
was  determined  to  plead  for  her  forgiveness  by  the  church. 
He  had  no  doubt  that  this  could  be  obtained,  for  he  had  sel- 
dom calculated  upon  his  influence  upon  his  brethren  without 
success. 

Mr.  Walton,  too,  had  his  difficulties.  He  had  paid  much 
attention  to  the  education  of  Theophilus.  Nothing  that 
money  could  procure  had  been  denied  him.  He  hoped  to 
see  his  son  occupy  a  proud  position  at  the  bar,  and  he  had 
placed  in  his  hands  all  the  required  helps.  But  with  all  his 
affection  for  his  son,  there  was  much  of  real  selfishness  in 
his  conduct  toward  him.  He  felt  that  the  honor  gained 
would  be  reflected  upon  himself  and  the  family.  He  con- 
sulted his  own  pride,  rather  than  the  wishes  of  his  son. 
But  now  that  Theophilus  had  united  himself  to  the  Method- 
ist Church,  against  his  declared  wishes,  his  sectarian  bigotry 
had  triumphed  over  his  natural  affection.  He  had  determined 
to  use  all  moderate  means  to  reclaim  him ;  but  in  the  event 
of  failure,  Mr.  Walton  had  resolved  to  use  an  argument 
which  he  knew  would  be  successful  in  his  own  case,  whether 
it  would  move  his  son  or  not.  The  last  resort  of  his 
wounded  pride  was  a  threat  to  disinherit  his  child;  and 
after   the   interview  with    Mr.  Ellis   and    Mr.   Battle,  Mr. 


THE     MAJESTY     OT     TRUTH.  231 

Walton  determined  to  communicate  his  resolution  to  Tlie- 
ophilus. 

On  Wednesday  morning,  Mr.  Ellis  summoned  his  daugh- 
ter to  the  sitting-room.  Mary  answered  the  summons  in  a 
few  moments.  As  she  entered  the  room,  she  saw  from  the 
expression  of  her  father's  countenance  that  she  would  need 
all  the  courage  she  could  command.  But  she  had  prepared 
herself  for  the  worst,  and  whatever  that  might  be,  she  deter- 
mined to  adhere  unfalteringly  to  the  interests  of  her  be- 
trothed. 

"  Mary,  my  daughter,"  commenced  Mr.  Ellis,  ^'  I  have 
learned  from  your  mother  that  you  have  had  an  interview 
with  that  bo}^,  Theophilus,  within  a  day  or  two  past.  Do 
you  remember  my  command,  Mary  ?'^ 

'I  remember  it  very  well,  father,''  replied  Mary^  calmly; 
*'  I  know  that  you  commanded  me  to  see  him  no  more." 

^'And  you  have  disobeyed  me,  Mary  V 

''  I  have  disobeyed  you,  father." 

''And  what  excuse  have  you  to  render  for  such  conduct?" 

"  I  have  no  excuse ,  father,  but  I  have  the  best  of  rea~ 
sons." 

''And  what  is  it,  Mary  ?" 

"  I  have  the  best  reason  a  woman  can  give  for  seeing  The- 
ophilus— I  love  him.  You  have  given  me  no  reason  why 
I  should  discard  him,  and  therefore  I  have  not  done  so." 

"  Then  you  take  the  liberty  of  doing  as  you  please,  I  sup- 
pose, disobe3ang  your  parents  at  pleasure  ?" 

"  Only  in  this  instance,  father." 

"  Do  you  intend  to  persist  in  this  course,  Mary  ?" 

"  Unless  you  convince  me  that  I  am  doing  wrong,  father. 
You  have  not  done  so  yet.  Although  I  regret  the  necessity 
which  compels  me  to  this  step,  I  am  nevertheless  firm  in  my 
decision." 

"And  you  intend  to  marry  this  young  man,  Mary?" 


232  THEOTHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^^Tliat  is  my  purpose,  father,  unless  you  can  give  mo 
some  reason  why  I  should  not." 

^'  I  can  give  you  reasons  enough,  my  child,  if  you  will 
heed  them.  Theophilus  is  young.  He  has  never,  perhaps, 
worked  a  day  in  his  life." 

"  Very  well,  father,  I  suppose  that  is  no  very  good  reason 
why  I  should  discard  him." 

'^  But  if  he  should  be  left  without  a  cent  from  his  father, 
what  then  ?" 

^'  I  should  love  him  still." 

^^  But  would  you  marry  him,  then  ?" 

"  You  mistake  me,  father.  I  have  not  fallen  in  love  with 
his  estate,  but  with  himself.  I  should  regard  his  being  dis- 
inherited as  a  misfortune,  but  I  must  have  proof  that  it  is 
his  fault." 

'^  He  has  oifended  his  father — that  is  enough.  He  con- 
siders him  no  longer  worthy  his  countenance." 

''And  for  the  very  reason  that  you  wish  me  to  treat  him 
unkindly.  Theophilus  is  no  longer  a  Baptist — that  is  the 
secret  of  your  opposition." 

''It  is  enough,  Mary.  He  has  been  the  means  of  injuring 
our  Church.  His  sin  is  a  grievous  one,  and  does  not  deserve 
to  be  forgiven." 

"  I  see  nothing  wrong  in  his  course,  father.  He  has  only 
obeyed  the  dictates  of  his  conscience." 

"  Then  you  persist  in  your  disobedience,  Mary  ?" 

"  I  am  firm,  father.  Convince  me  that  Theophilus  is  no 
longer  worthy  of  my  affection,  and  I  will  obey  you.  But 
until  you  give  a  better  cause  for  discarding  him  than  you 
have  done  so  far,  I  shall  remain  true  to  him." 

"  Then,  Mary,  you  renounce  your  father  and  your  home 
for  ever." 

"  Be  it  so,  father,"  replied  Mary,  a  bright  tear-drop  roll- 
mo;  down  her  cheeks.     "  You  have  said  the  word.     I  cannot 


THE     iMAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  233 

be  to  blame.  If  I  am  to  forsake  father  and  mother,  it  is  for 
his  sake  who  has  been  the  subject  of  my  thoughts,  and  is  to 
be  the  sharer  of  mj  joys  and  sorrows.  If  you  say  so,  I 
must  leave  you.  I  will  not  stay  where  he  is  not  allowed  to 
come." 

'^  Foolish  child !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Ellis,  '^  where  will  you  go  V 

"  I  shall  trust  in  God,"  reiDlied  Mary.  "  He  will  provide 
for  us." 

"  But  how  will  you  live  ?"  asked  Mr.  Ellis. 

^'  I  am  not  too  good  to  work,  father,  Theopbilus  is  not 
dependent.  While  God  blesses  us  with  health  we  shall 
never  want  bread.  A  cottage  will  be  enough  for  me ;  if  my 
husband  can  only  find  occupation,  we  shall  not  crave  his 
father's  riches." 

"  Go,  then  1"  exclaimed  Mr.  Ellis,  "  and  try  it.  But  he 
shall  never  set  foot  in  my  house  again — never." 

Mr.  Ellis  left  the  room,  and  Mary  soon  followed.  She 
had  put  on  her  bonnet  and  shawl,  when  her  mother  met  her 
at  the  door  of  her  room. 

"  Where  arc  you  going,  Mary  ?"  asked  Mrs.  Ellis. 

"  I  am  going  to  Aunt  Riley's,"  replied  3Iary. 

"  You  are  not  going  to  leave  us,  Mary  ?" 

^'I  am  not  prepared  to  say  now,  mother/'  replied  Mary; 
^^I  shall  spend  the  day  there,  however." 

^'  You  will  be  back  to  supper  ?" 

"  I  cannot  tell,  mother — I  may  not." 

"  But  you  must,  Mary." 

^^Not  without  father's  permission.  Good-morning,  mo- 
ther." 

Mary  was  gone  in  a  moment.  She  seemed  not  to  be 
angry.  Her  countenance  was  calm,  and  her  voice  as  sweet 
and  musical  as  ever.  Mrs.  Ellis  had  overheard  the  conver- 
sation in  the  sitting-room,  and  she  determined  to  persuade 
her  husband  to  deal  more  gently  with  their  daughter. 


234  tiieophtluswalton;    or, 

Mr.  Ellis  was  inexorable.  In  vain  did  his  wife  represent 
to  him  the  injury  he  was  inflicting  upon  himself  and  his 
Church  by  such  a  heartless  course.  The  world  would  judge 
him  harshly,  and  say  that  he  had  acted  cruelly.  Theophi- 
lus  was  beloved  by  all,  and  to  the  impartial,  Mr.  Ellis  was 
without  excuse.  His  wife  assured  him  that  Mary's  firmness 
was  not  to  be  overruled  by  unkindness.  Indeed,  the 
mother's  heart  was  more  than  half-inclined  to  defend  her 
daughter,  although  she  had  done  every  thing  in  her  power 
to  prevent*  the  present  issue.  Mrs.  Ellis  remembered  that 
when  she  was  even  younger  than  Mary,  she  had  married  Mr. 
Ellis  against  her  parents'  wishes.  She  felt  that,  after  all, 
Mary  might  be  in  the  right.  But  Mr.  Ellis  spoke  very 
abruptly  to  his  wife,  and  left  the  house,  and  she  did  not  see 
him  again  until  the  dinner-hour.  She  did  not  venture  to 
renew  the  subject  then,  for  Mr.  Ellis  seemed  to  be  in  much 
distress,  and,  after  hastily  dispatching  his  meal,  went  out 
a2;ain. 


THE    MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH 


235 


CHAPTER    XYII. 

A     STRUGGLE     AND     A     VICTORY. 

On  lier  way  to  Mr.  Eiley's  Mary  met  Theopliilus.  He 
liad  started  to  her  father's  house  to  see  her.  He  accompa- 
nied her  to  the  house  of  Mr.  Riley,  where  Mary  informed 
him  of  the  conversation  with  her  father  that  morning. 

'^  I  am  sorry  that  you  have  been  treated  thus  for  my  sake^ 
jMary,"  said  Theophilus;  ''but  be  of  good  courage,  my  love, 
the  Lord  has  not  forsaken  us.  I  received  from  my  father 
this  morning  the  intelligence  that  he  has  determined  to  cast 
me  off  for  ever."  ^ 

''Just  as  I  expected;  Theophilus/'  said  Mary;  "and  how 
did  you  receive  it?'^ 

"I  thought  of  the  words  of  the  Psalmist,  'When  my 
father  and  my  mother  forsake  me,  then  the  Lord  will  take 
me  up.'  I  was  so  conscious  of  my  rectitude,  and  that  I  had 
done  nothing  to  deserve  condemnation,  that  I  received  his 
orders  without  a  murmur.  I  am  to  look  to  him  for  nothing 
so  long  as  I  persist  in  being  a  Methodist.  I  replied  to  him 
calmly,  and  told  him  that  I  had  taken  up  my  cross,  and 
however  heavy  that  might  be,  by  the  help  of  God's  grace,  I 
was  resolved  to  bear  it.  I  have  nothing  now,  Mary,  to  sus- 
tain me  but  your  fidelity  and  the  grace  of  Grod.'' 

"And  we  shall  be  happy,  Theophilus!''  exclaimed  Mary; 
"  happier  than  the  tenants  of  royal  mansions,  and  those  who 
boast  themselves  of  riches.     We  can  work,  and  the  good 


236  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

Lord,  who  feeds  the  birds  without  barn  or  storehouse,  will 
not  permit  us  to  lack  for  bread/' 

"I  believe  that  firmly,  Mary/'  answered  Theophilus; 
'^  but  still  there  is  a  subject  which  gives  me  great  anxiety. 
I  have  not  informed  you  of  it  yet,  and  I  must  beg  your  par- 
don for  my  remissness.  Perhaps,  after  all,  it  may  be  the 
greatest  hindrance  in  the  way  of  our  union.'' 

''Well,  what  is  it.  The.  i'  I  am  prepared  for  anything 
now.  I  have  left  father  and  mother  for  you.  .There  is  no 
other  sacrifice  which  I  can  make  that  shall  not  be  freely 
made.     Tell  me,  what  more  am  I  to  do?" 

''  Bear  with  me,  Mary,"  replied  Theophilus,  "  I  am  going 
to  relate  to  you  a  strange  story.  Do  not  charge  me  with 
superstition,  but  hear  me  out  before  you  judge.  AVhen  I 
was  a  little  boy,  hardly  more  than  four  years  of  age,  I  had 
a  singular  dream,  which  impressed  my  mind  so  vividly  that 
it  is  now  almost  as  distinctly  before  me  as  the  night  when  it 
first  transpired.  I  thought  I  was  in  a  vast  field,  which 
extended,  in  slightly  undulating  plains,  as  far  as  the  eye 
could  reach.  The  surface  of  the  ground  seemed  to  be  per- 
fectly bare ;  and  whilst  I  was  walking  alone  in  this  field  I 
felt  the  earth  shake  beneath  my  feet,  and  a  singular  noise, 
resembliug  the  striking  of  heavy  timbers  against  the  ground, 
underneath.  I  was  greatly  alarmed,  and  remembering  that 
my  mother  had  taught  me  to  pray,  I  knelt  down,  and  asked 
the  Lord  to  protect  me.  Whilst  I  was  kneeling  there  I 
dreamed  that  a  voice  fell  from  the  sky  overhead,  and  I 
heard  these  words,  '  This  is  my  prophet,  harm  him  not.'  In 
a  moment  I  felt  perfectly  assured  that  I  was  safe,  and  rising 
to  my  feet,  I  looked  out  again  upon  the  field.  The  noise 
had  ceased,  and  the  whole  earth  was  covered  with  grain 
resembling  wheat,  just  ripe  and  ready  for  the  sickle.  The 
golden  heads  were  waving  to  and  fro  under  a  gentle  breeze, 
and,  in  the  clear  sunlight,  looked  like  a  sea  of  gold,  rolling 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  237 

on  wave  after  wave.  In  a  moment  more  an  innumerable 
company  of  reapers  appeared,  all  dressed  in  white,  and 
T^egan  to  harvest  the  grain.  I  awoke  soon  after,  and  the 
impression  left  upon  my  mind  has  not  been  effaced  to  this 
day.  That  dream  has  followed  me,  Mary,  when  I  have  been 
surrounded  by  gay  and  dissipated  companions.  I  have  never 
been  tempted  to  ridicule  sacred  things,  or  to  speak  lightly  of 
religion,  without  thinking  of  it,  and  I  am  sure  it  has  pre- 
served me  from  committing  a  thousand  sins." 

^'And  what  did  you  make  of  it,  Theophilus  V  inquired 
Mary. 

"  I  thought  that  it  was  from  God,  and  warned  me  of  the 
fact  that  I  should  live  to  be  a  minister  of  the  gospel — a  mes- 
senger of  the  Lord.  I  cannot  say  now  that  this  was  the 
proper  interpretation,  or  that  it  was  more  than  a  childish 
fancy,  but  certainly  it  has  been  of  great  service  to  me. 
Whether  from  this  source  alone  I  cannot  tell,  but  I  have 
always  felt  that  I  should  be  called  to  minister  in  holy  things. 
When  at  the  altar  for  prayer,  recently,  I  found  it  necessary 
to  give  myself  wholly  up  to  the  Lord,  and  if  he  saw  fit  to 
prepare  me  for  this  work,  I  resolved  to  take  up  the  cross 
Now,  Mary,  I  have  told  you  all.  You  are  the  only  human 
being  to  whom  I  have  confided  this  secret  of  my  heart.  I 
feel  that  I  must  preach  the  gospel,  or  forfeit  the  favor  of  my 
Grod.  It  was  this  impression  that  made  me  so  decided  in 
the  choice  of  my  Church  relations.  Some  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Baptist  Church  I  cannot  believe,  and  therefore  I 
cannot  preach  them.  Now  I  have  told  you  all,  Mary,  tell 
me,  my  dear,  do  you  object  to  my  resolution  ?" 

''  What,  Theophilus  !"  said  Mary,  "  to  preach  the  gospel  ? 
No,  my  love,  if  the  Lord  has  called  you  to  this  work,  go ; 
he  will  qualify  you  for  it.  I  have  but  one  objection  to  your 
entering  the  ministry.  I  feel  that  new  duties  would  be 
imposed  upon  me,  new  responsibilities  placed    upon  me — 


238  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

my  example  and  influence  must  be  of  sucli  a  cliaracter  as  to 
aid  you  in  your  labors.  The  grace  of  Grod  alone  can  fit  me 
for  such  a  station.  I  will  try  it — I  will  go  anywhere  that 
the  Lord  may  call  you  to  labor.  Not  a  straw  will  I  place  in 
your  way.  I  honor  you  for  your  integrity,  love  you  for 
yourself  alone ;  and  whatever  may  be  your  lot,  as  I  said  to 
you  before,  ^  naught  but  death  shall  part  thee  and  me.'  ^' 

"But  weigh  well  the  difficulties,  Mary.  I  may  be  ap- 
pointed to  difficult  fields  of  labor.  You  will  have  to  suifer 
many  privations,  and  to  bear  many  hardships.  You  must 
live  for  the  most  part  among  strangers,  and  meet  many  of  the 
trials  of  itinerant  life.'' 

"  I  am  ready,  Theophilus,"  replied  Mary,  "  to  share  any 
hardship  with  you.  Let  me  know  and  see  that  you  are 
happy,  and  I  could  live  in  a  desert,  as  happily  as  if  in  a 
sumptuous  mansion.  Fear  nothing  from  me,  my  dear;  I  shall 
not  hesitate  a  moment.^^ 

"Then,  Mary!"  exclaimed  Theophilus,  "let  our  ambition 
be  to  do  good,  and  the  Lord  will  bless  us.  You  are  a  trea- 
sure, more  costly  than  rubies,  more  precious  than  diamonds. 
With  you  to  comfort  and  cheer  me,  and  the  favor  of  my 
Heavenly  Father,  I  can  suffer  the  loss  of  all  things  else." 

The  morning  passed  pleasantly  away,  and  soon  the  hour 
arrived  for  the  afternoon  meeting  of  Carrie  Mason  and  her 
frisnds. 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  239 


CHAPTER    XVIII. 

CARRIE    mason's    REVIEW CONCLUDED. 

^'  1  BELIEVE  you  have  gone  tlirougli  tlie  cross-examination 
of  Theodosia's  witnesses,  Miss  Carrie/'  said  Mr.  Price,  ^'and 
I  admit  that  your  view  of  the  subject  takes  the  witnesses  out 
of  the  hands  of  the  Baptists.  You  have  gone,  I  believe,  to 
the  close  of  the  Second  Night." 

^'I  have  examined  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Barnes,  Dr. 
Macknight,  Dr.  Chalmers,  Luther,  and  Mr.  Wesley,"  said 
Carrie,  '^and  we  have  seen  that  they  all  agree  in  rejecting 
the  doctrine  of  exclusive  immersion.  Not  one  of  these  men 
believed  that  exclusive  immersion  was  practiced  by  the  an- 
cient Church,  that  it  is  enjoined  in  the  Scriptures,  or  that  it 
is  to  be  understood  from  the  meaning  of  the  Gfreek  word. 
And  yet  these  men  are  brought  forward  to  prove  a  doctrine 
which  they  did  not  believe,  and  the  minds  of  professed 
Pedobaptists  are  represented  as  being  convinced  by  testi- 
mony which  does  not  reach  the  case.  Let  me  ask  you,  Mr. 
Price,  if  with  such  witnesses  as  these  you  could  gain  a  case 
in  court?"    * 

"  Not  unless  they  proved  the  point  in  dispute,  Miss  Carrie," 
replied  Mr.  Price;  ^^if  the  testimony  does  not  reach  the 
statements  set  forth  in  the  indictment,  we  are  compelled  to 
enter  a  nolle  prosequi,  and  dismiss  the  case." 

''  Exactly  so,"  replied  Carrie.  ''  We,  as  Pedobaptists,  are 
charged  with  disloyalty  to  the  King  of  heaven— nothing  less 


240  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

tlian  treason  against  our  heavenly  Master.  The  specification 
is  that  we  have  wilfully  substituted  a  mode  of  baptism  for 
that  which  our  Lawgiver  has  commanded.  Witnesses  are 
summoned  from  our  own  ranks  to  testify  against  themselves 
as  well  as  against  us.  But  we  find,  upon  examining  the  tes- 
timony, that  they  do  not  prove  the  indictment,  that  they 
have  never  spoken  a  word  which  can  possibly  prove  it,  and 
therefore,  unless  the  other  side — the  iirosccutors  in  this  case 
• — can  prove  it  by  other  means,  the  case  is  determined,  and 
the  prosecution  fails. 

^'  You  will  perceive,  then,  my  friends,"  continued  Carrie, 
'^low  far  you  are  to  credit  the  statements  of  this  book. 
Whenever  by  chance  a  Pedobaptist  has  been  found  who 
mentions  immersion  favorably,  or  allows  that  it  is  a  mode  of 
baptism,  his  words  are  seized  upon  as  valid  fvoof  that  im- 
mersion is  the  o)dy  mode,  and  we  are  required  to  believe 
that  these  men  testify  against  themselves.  The  most  of  you 
have  seen  already  with  what  force  this  sort  of  argument  may 
be  turned  against  immersionists.  If  our  Baptist  friends 
prefer  immersion,  let  them  practice  it.  If  they  believe 
Christ  commanded  it,  let  them  remember  that  we  are  as 
conscientious  in  keeping  Christ's  commandments  as  they  are, 
and  if  we  do  not  practice  immersion,  it  is  simply  because  we 
do  not  believe  that  our  Saviour  requires  it  at  our  hands.  If 
we  cannot  agree,  then,  as  to  the  precise  nature  of  the  com- 
mand, let  us  at  all  events  agree  to  live  in  peace,  and  grant  to 
each  other  a  reasonable  liberty  of  conscience." 

^'  That  is  a  Christianlike  view  of  the  controversy.  Miss 
Carrie,"  said  Mr.  Price;  ''but  are  you  not  going  to  examine 
some  of  the  proofs  in  Theodosia  on  the  Baptist  side  ?" 

''I  have  looked  over  the  Third  Night's  study,"  replied 
Carrie,  ''  and  I  see  nothing  there  worthy  of  special  notice. 
Mr.  Johnson,  the  Presbyterian  pastor,  commences  a  sort  of 
argument — we  will  call  it  arcjument  for  the  sake  of  courtesy. 


THE     MAJESTY     OE    TRUTH.  241 

but  it  is  nothing  more  than  mere  assertions,  from  which  a 
very  few  Baptist  strokes  make  the  Presbyterian  minister  to 
recede,  and  leave  his  cause  in  the  hands  of  his  opponents. 
It  would  be  a  waste  of  time  to  notice  the  trivial  attempts  at 
proof  which  the  minister  makes.  Of  course,  to  meet  the 
wants  of  Theodosia's  cause,  he  must  make  confident  asser- 
tions, and  then  give  them  up  without  hardly  a  struggle. 

^' Mr.  Percy  suggests  that  John  the  Baptist  ^  might  have 
provided  himself  with  a  large-sized  syringe  or  squirt-gun j 
and,  filling  it  from  the  river,  have  turned  its  stream  along  the 
ranks,'  and  thus,  probably,  he  baptized  the  Jews !  Of 
course  this  suggestion  makes  merriment  for  the  author,  but 
he  gravely  tells  us  that  the  Presbyterian  minister  accejpfs  the 
suggestion  as  '  an  amendment  to  his  supposition/  and  good 
proof  for  his  cause  ! 

"  This  is  but  a  sample  of  this  minister's  argument.  And 
after  giving  up  post  after  post,  he  finally  makes  a  stand  on 
'with' — John  baptized  with  water,  therefore  he  did  not  im- 
merse. Edwin,  however,  upsets  the  grave  Presbyterian's 
argument,  by  saying  that  ^Aunt  Chloe,  the  cook,'  told  him 
how  she  '  would  get  the  feathers  off  the  chicken  for  dinner.' 
The  cook  said  she  would  scald  it  with  hot  water,  and  then 
dijjped  the  chicken  into  the  water.  Moreover,  '  big  Joe,  the 
butcher,'  loosened  the  hair  of  the  hogs  he  killed,  ivith  hot 
water,  by  di2:>2ying  the  hogs  into  the  water,  and  therefore 
John  baptized  by  immersion  !  Mr.  Percy  gives  it  up,  Edwin 
gains  the  day,  and  the  learned  Presbyterian  minister  is 
silenced ! 

'^  Now,  my  friends,"  continued  Carrie,  '^  when  such  argu- 
ments as  these  silence  all  opposition,  we  may  despair  of  any 
attempt  to  answer  them.  So  absurd  in  themselves  are  the 
efforts  of  the  Pedobaptist  advocates  in  this  book,  that  they 
will  not  bear  a  grave  attempt  to  refute  them.  Yet  they  are 
said  to  be  the  hest,  the  strongest  arguments  on  our  side,  and 
11 


242  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

*  Tlieodosia  Ernest'  is  held  up  to  us  by  the  Baptists  as,  be- 
yond comparison,  the  most  impartial  of  books  ! 

^'  In  the  Fourth  Night's  study,  the  pastor  comes  to  the 
rescue  again.  He  brings  up  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  which  is  said  to  be  a  baptism  by 
pouring  out  the  Holy  Spirit.  Theodosia  takes  Mr.  John- 
son in  hand,  and  makes  him  admit  that  there  was  no  literal 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  that  there  was  no  pouring  out 
of  the  Spirit — that  it  is  all  a  figure  of  speech !  Now  I  am 
not  very  well  acquainted  with  the  writings  of  Presbyterians, 
it  is  true,  but  if  any  one  of  distinction  among  orthodox 
Presbyterians  has  ever  made  such  an  admission,  I  have  never 
heard  of  it.  This  point  I  will  not  pretend  to  argue,  as  it 
has  been  already  noticed  at  length  in  father's  conversations 
with  Mr.  Walton.  I  will  only  remark,  however,  that  it  ap- 
pears evident  to  me  that  the  baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  as  truly 
literal  as  the  baptism  with  water.  If  one  is  a  figure,  the 
other  is  also — John  the  Baptist  is  a  figure^  Jordan  is  a  figure, 
and  the  Jews  were  all  figures ! 

"After  admitting,  however,  that  the  baptism  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  only  a  figurative  baptism,  Mr.  Johnson  declares 
that  there  was  not  water  enough  in  Jerusalem  to  immerse 
three  thousand  persons.  After  delivering  this  declaration, 
he  makes  it  convenient  to  take  up  his  hat  and  leave,  and 
the  Baptist  schoolmaster  comes  in,  of  course,  to  find  proof 
that  there  was  the  greatest  quantity  of  water  imaginable  in 
Jerusalem.  Uncle  Jones,  however,  saves  the  schoolmaster 
the  trouble,  by  coming  in  first,  and  giving  his  niece,  Theo- 
dosia, the  information,  that  Robinson,  in  his  Kesearches  in 
Palestine,  found  pools  over  300  feet  long  and  200  feet  wide, 
but  he  does  not  say  how  deep.  The  depth  of  these  pools 
was  decidedly  a  matter  of  importance,  as  it  would  be  about 
as  difficult  to  immerse  in  a  pool  forty  feet  deep  as  in  one  only 
a  foot  in  depth.'' 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  243 

"  I  was  reading  the  other  day/'  remarked  Theopliilus,  ^'  a 
letter  from  a  correspondent  who  is  now  living  in  Jerusalem. 
The  letter  was  published  in  the  National  Intelligencer. 
The  writer  says  that  the  three  pools  of  Solomon  are  from 
25  to  50  feet  in  depth,  and  that  the  pools  within  the  city  are 
of  immense  extent,  designed  for  reservoirs  to  contain  water 
for  the  use  of  the  people.  I  should  think,  however,  that 
these  pools,  being  the  only  source  from  which  the  people 
could  obtain  water  for  drinking  and  cooking  purposes,  would 
hardly  be  used  to  immerse  the  bodies  of  the  Christian  con- 
verts.'' 

^'  True,"  replied  Carrie,  ^^  and  when  I  looked  into  Robin- 
son's Lexicon  the  other  day,  (and  this  is  the  same  Robinson 
quoted  by  Theodosia,)  I  copied  these  remarks  :  ^  In  Acts  ii. 
41,  three  thousand  persons  are  said  to  have  been  baptized  at 
Jerusalem,  apparently  in  one  day,  at  the  season  of  Pentecost, 
in  June ;  and  in  Acts  iv.  4,  the  same  rite  is  necessarily  im- 
plied in  respect  to  five  thousand  more.  Against  the  idea  of 
full  immersion  in  these  cases,  there  lies  a  difficulty  app^ 
ently  insuperahle,  in  the  scarcity  of  water.  There  is  in 
summer  no  running  stream  in  the  vicinity  of  Jerusalem, 
except  the  mere  rill  of  Siloam,  a  few  rods  in  length  ]  and 
the  city  is  and  was  supplied  with  water  from  its  cisterns 
and  public  reservoirs.  From  neither  of  these  sources  could 
a  supply  have  been  well  obtained  for  the  immersion  of  eight 
thousand  persons.  The  same  scarcity  of  water  forhade  the 
use  of  private  baths  as  a  general  custom.  .  .  The  baptismal 
fonts  still  found  among  the  ruins  of  the  most  ancient  G-reek 
churches  in  Palestine,  as  at  Tekoa  and  Gophna,  and  going 
back  apparently  to  very  early  times,  are  not  large  enough  to 
admit  of  the  baptism  of  adult  persons  by  immersion ;  and 
-  were  obviously  never  intended  for  that  use.'  So  says  Dr. 
Robinson. 

^'After  ^  Uncle  Jones'  finds  the  pools,  with  plenty  of  water 


244  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

in  tliem,  he  has  a  scruple  in  his  mind  whether  or  not  the 
Jews,  who  had  control  of  them,  would  permit  the  disciples 
to  baptize  their  converts  in  them  by  immersion.  Theodosia 
gets  this  difficulty  out  of  the  way,  however,  by  telling  him 
how  wonderfully  popular  the  apostles  were  on  the  day  of 
Pentecost.  '  Fear  came  upon  every  soul,'  and  they  had 
favor  with  all  the  people.  Moreover,  adds  Theodosia,  ^  they 
gave  them  tJie  Temple  to  preach  in,  and  it  is  not  likely  they 
would  refuse  the  pools  to  baptize  in.'  Now,  I  confess  this  is 
new  to  me.  I  never  heard  before  that  the  apostles  turned 
the  Temple  of  the  Jews  into  a  meeting-house.  According 
to  this  statement,  the  Jews  were  a  great  deal  more  generous 
than  the  Baptists  of  the  Graves  stamp,  the  Iron  Wheelites, 
for  they  will  not  suffer  Pedobaptist  Christians  to  preach  in 
their  temples." 

'^  But  where  does  Theodosia  learn  that  the  apostles  had 
the  Temple  to  preach  in  ?"  asked  Theophilus. 

^'Ah,  that's  the  question!"  exclaimed  Carrie;  ^^ perhaps 
Mr.  Courtney,  the  Baptist  schoolmaster,  discovered  it  some- 
where. I  have  never  seen  the  statement  in  the  Bible.  We 
are  told  that  ^when  the  day  of  Pentecost  was  fully  come, 
they  were  all  with  one  accord  in  one  place,'  but  that  that 
place  was  the  Temple,  is  not  only  omitted  by  Luke,  but  we 
know  that  it  could  not  have  been  so.  The  idea  of  the  high- 
priest  and  the  elders  consenting  to  let  Peter  have  the 
Temple  to  preach  in  is  supremely  ludicrous.  And  that 
these  pools  or  cisterns,  from  which  the  Jews  obtained  their 
daily  supplies  of  water,  were  tendered  to  the  apostles  for  the 
purpose  of  immersing  their  converts,  is  absolutely  preposter- 
ous.    Such,  at  least,  is  my  opinion." 

^^And  you  are  undoubtedly  correct,"  remarked  Theophi- 
lus, ^^for  notwithstanding  the  favor  of  the  people,  which 
Theodosia  mentions,  we  are  informed  in  the  fourth  chapter 
of  Acts,  that  the  priests,  the  captain  of  the  Temple,  and 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTU.  245 

the  Sadducees,  came  upon  Peter  and  John  in  Solomon's 
porch,  outside  of  the  Temple,  and  took  them  to  prison  for 
preaching  the  gospel. '^ 

^^  You  see,  Miss  Theodosia  had  been  long  enough  under 
Baptist  tuition  to  improve  her /a?icy,"  said  Carrie;  ^^  she 
was  nearly  ready  to  see  dressing-rooms  erected  at  the  pools 
by  those  clever  Jews,  who  had  such  a  high  opinion  of  the 
disciples  that  they  put  the  first  martyr,  Stephen,  to  death  a 
short  time  afterward,  and  drove  the  Christians  from  their 
midst ! 

"  The  next  point  to  be  disposed  of  between  '  Uncle  Jones' 
and  Theodosia  is,  as  to  the  amount  of  time  required  to 
immerse  three  thousand  persons.  '  Uncle  Jones'  makes  the 
disciples  meet  at  9  o'clock  in  the  morning ;  Peter  preaches 
two  hours,  and  it  takes  them  one  hour  to  get  to  the  water. 
Then  they  begin  the  plunging  at  twelve  o'clock,  and  have 
just  six  hours  to  go  upon  to  wind  up  by  night.  ^  Uncle 
Jones,'  however,  has  taken  notice  that  a  Baptist  preacher 
can  immerse  twenty  persons  in  fifteen  minutes,  and  as  there 
were  twelve  baptizers,  he  says  they  could  do  the  work 
^  without  any  appearance  of  haste ^  and  with  the  coolest  de- 
liberationJ  I  should  think  the  deliberation  ivould  be 
rather  cool,  if  the  apostles  had  to  stand  in  the  water  y?2;e  or 
six  hours,  even  in  the  month  of  June  !  So  the  matter  of 
time  is  disposed  of.  The  Jews  tender  the  Temple  for  the 
apostles  to  preach  in ;  lend  them  their  pools  and  cisterns  to 
immerse  in,  and  the  apostles  dip  more  than  a  man  a  minute 
for  several  hours  together  :  such  are  the  dreams  of  Theo- 
dosia's  fourth  night. 

^^  I  have  now  given  you  some  of  my  objections  to  the 
book,"  continued  Carrie,  "  and  you  will  see,  by  examining  it, 
that  the  remaining  portion  is  just  as  full  of  contradictions, 
and,  to  use  a  strong  word,  of  absurdities,  as  that  already 
noticed.     Upon  the  whole,  I  consider  it  not  only  uncandid, 


246  THEOPHILUS     WALTON. 

but  unfair  in  its  argument  and  reasonings.  Tlieodosia's 
journey  to  lier  '  liquid  grave'  was  a  very  short  one.  She 
commenced  a  Baptist,  and  ends  a  Baptist.  Her  Pedobaptist 
friends  are  all  Baptists  in  disguise,  and  it  is  by  no  means 
difficult  to  detect  the  wolf  in  the  sheep's  clothing.  How- 
ever, as  we  promised  to  part  as  good  friends  as  we  were 
when  we  met,  I  shall  not  say  any  more.  If  I  have  said 
any  thing  harshly,  pardon  me,  I  did  not  mean  it.'' 

"  I  admire  your  coolness  and  charity,  Miss  Carrie,''  said 
Mr.  Price.  '^I  must  say,  also,  that  you  have  directed  my 
mind  to  several  important  points,  which  I  will  examine 
when  I  have  leisure.  I  am  sure  we  are  all  pleased  with 
your   conversations,  and  will   be   glad   to   hear  you   again 


Jiftlt  (Bv(i\mi^. 


NEW  TESTAMENT  BAPTISMS  CONTINUED. 


NO  PEOOF  OF  IMMERSION  IN  ANY  CASE. 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  249 


FIFTH  EVENING 


The  audience  assembled  at  the  usual  hour  on  Wednesday 
evening,  and  Mr.  Mason  began  as  follows : 

^'  On  last  evening,  you  remember,  Theophilus,  we  closed 
our  investigation  with  the  baptism  of  the  converts  on  the 
day  of  Pentecost.  By  a  plain,  reasonable  interpretation  of 
the  Scripture  account,  we  ascertained  that  they  were  not 
baptized  by  immersion.  To  this  conclusion  we  were  brought 
by  two  important  facts,  plainly  stated  in  the  text.  1.  "Wher- 
ever they  assembled  together,  there  they  were  baptized, 
because  the  sacred  historian  does  not  intimate  that  there 
was  an  adjournment  of  the  meeting  for  the  purpose  of  im- 
mersing the  candidates.  2.  The  water  of  baptism,  and  the 
act  by  which  it  was  administered,  were  typical  of  spiritual 
baptism,  the  great  result  which  they  were  seeking.  This 
baptism  of  the  Spirit  is  expressly  said  to  be  by  pouring. 

^'  We  shall  follow  the  various  narratives  in  the  Acts  of  the 
Apostles,  this  evening,  and  see  the  uniform  character  of 
those  passages  which  describe  the  baptism  of  Christian  con- 
verts. If  it  shall  appear  that  the  testimony  is  alike  in  all 
cases,  we  shall  not  be  at  a  loss  to  know  how  the  persons  were 
baptized.  It  is  necessary  to  remark,  however,  before  we 
proceed,  that  the  writer  of  this  book  uses  the  phrases,  the 
^ g^fi  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  the  ^  Holy  Ghost/  as  the  c'^'^- 
11* 


250  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

verting  power,  as  interchangeable  terms.  Sometimes,  per- 
haps usually,  in  the  first  conversions  in  those  days,  a  large 
number  of  persons  obtained  miraculous  powers,  such  as 
speaking  in  various  languages,  hitherto  unknown  to  them. 
But  it  is  not  said  that  this  was  true  in  every  instance,  or 
that  every  person  was  so  gifted  at  any  one  time.  It  was 
enough  that  these  remarkable  gifts  were  sufficiently  numer- 
ous to  attest  the  Divine  presence  and  manifestation  in  the 
work.  We  do  not  suppose  that  three  thousand  Jews  became 
thus  endowed  on  the  day  of  Pentecost.  It  is  probable  that 
some  of  them  were,  but  there  could  be  no  necessity  that  all 
should  be  thus  exercised.  The  great  design  of  the  baptism 
of  the  Spirit  was  to  cleanse  the  heart  from  the  defilements  of 
sin,  and  this  design  is  perpetually  characteristic,  and  essen- 
tially necessary,  as  the  result  of  conversion  to  God.  When- 
ever we  read  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit  being  bestowed, 
we  have  no  right  to  infer  more  from  the  expression  than  the 
pardon  of  sins  and  regeneration  of  the  heart,  unless  the 
miraculous  gifts  are  expressly  stated  in  connection  with  the 
conversion, 

''The  next  passage  in  the  Acts,  in  which  the  subject  of 
baptism  is  mentioned,  is  the  eighth  chapter.  In  the  first 
part  of  this  chapter  we  have  the  account  of  the  conversion 
of  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  Samaria,  and  in  the  latter 
part  the  introduction  of  the  gospel  into  Ethiopia  through 
the  treasurer  of  Queen  Candace.  We  will  first  examine  the 
case  of  the  people  of  Samaria.  Philip,  (whose  ordination 
as  one  of  the  seven  deacons  is  mentioned  in  the  sixth  chap- 
ter,) during  the  persecution  of  the  Church,  which  was  chiefly 
carried  on  through  the  instrumentality  of  Saul  of  Tarsus, 
'  went  down  to  the  city  of  Samaria,  and  preached  Christ  unto 
them.'  This  city  was  about  forty  miles  distant  from  Jeru- 
salem, and  occupied  a  middle  position  between  Judea  and 
Gralilee.    The  people,  seeing  the  miracles  performed  by  Philip, 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  -251 

gave  heed  to  his  doctrines,  and  many,  both  men  and  women, 
were  baptized.  The  language  of  the  historian  is  as  follows : 
^But  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  Grod,  and  the  name  of  Jesus 
Christ,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  women.'  It  is  a 
question  of  serious  importance,  whether  these  Samaritans 
were  truly  converted  persons  previous  to  their  baptism.  If 
they  were  not,  why  were  they  baptized  ?  And  if  they  were 
converted,  why  did  Peter  and  John  go  down  and  pray  for 
them  that  they  might  receive  the  Holy  Grhost  ?  Here  are 
two  difficulties  to  be  settled,  and,  as  usual,  there  are  two 
theories  among  the  teachers  of  immersion,  to  explain  the 
matter.  One  party  contends  that  their  faith  in  the  preach- 
ing of  Philip  was  followed  by  a  genuine  change  of  heart, 
qualifying  them  for  the  ordinance,  whilst  the  subsequent 
gift  of  the  Holy  Grhost  had  reference  alone  to  miraculous 
powers.  The  other  party  contends  that  their  faith  only  con- 
sisted in  the  acceptance  of  Jesus  as  their  Messiah,  and  that 
in  the  action  of  baptism  their  sins  were  remitted.  Neither 
of  these  opinions  is  wholly  true.  These  Samaritans  were 
inhabitants  of  a  city  which  was  once  the  capital  of  the  king- 
dom of  Israel.  They  claimed  to  be  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, and  practiced  the  rite  of  circumcision  ]  and  when 
they  believed  the  fact  which  Philip  declared  unto  them, 
that  Jesus  was  their  Christ,  they  were  immediately  received 
into  the  new  dispensation  by  the  ordinance  of  baptism. 
This  faith  which  they  had  then  may  be  called,  perhaps  pro- 
perly, historical.  They  were  expecting  the  Messiah — Philip 
preached  the  intelligence  of  his  actual  coming,  and  his  word 
was  sealed  to  their  acceptance  by  the  testimony  of  miracles. 
After  their  baptism,  however,  notwithstanding  they  had  thus 
put  on  Christ,  it  is  expressly  said,  ^As  yet  the  Holy  Ghost 
was  fallen  upon  none  of  them,  only  they  were  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus.'     I  understand  by  this,  that 


252  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

altliougli  they  had  been  baptized  in  the  name  of  Christ,  and 
consequently  were  brought  under  the  new  dispensation,  still 
they  were  unconverted  men  and  women.  They  had  under- 
gone no  spiritual  change ;  they  were  converts  from  Judaism 
to  Christianity,  but  not  from  sin  to  holiness.  This  view  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  Simon,  the  sorcerer,  believed  and 
was  baptized,  and  yet  Peter  afterward  tells  him  he  is  in 
the  gall  of  bitterness  and  the  bond  of  iniquity.  It  will 
hardly  be  said  by  any  one  that  Simon  was  a  backslider ;  that 
having  been  truly  converted,  he  fell  from  that  state  before 
the  apostles  arrived.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  Simon  was  a 
Jiyiwcrite,  that  he  pretended  to  be  a  converted  man,  whilst 
he  was  not.  It  is  said  positively  that  Simon  believed  also, 
and  when  he  was  baptized  he  continued  with  Philip,  and 
wondered  at  the  things  which  were  done.  Now  what  did 
Simon  believe  ?  Certainly  it  was  the  same  truth  which  the 
rest  of  the  Samaritans  believed — that  Jesus  was  the  Christ, 
the  Son  of  God,  the  Mediator  of  the  New  Covenant.  This 
belief  of  his  was  founded  upon  the  same  evidence,  and  was 
certainly  as  genuine  as  that  of  the  other  Samaritans.  Not- 
withstanding this,  he  was  not  a  true  penitent;  he  was  no 
more  a  converted  man  than  he  who  believes  the  truths  of  the 
Bible  without  being  a  religious  man.  When  the  apostles 
came,  prayed  with  the  people,  and  laid  their  hands  on  them, 
they  received  the  Holy  Ghost;  they  were  then  spiritually 
changed,  and  doubtless  some  of  them  were  endowed  with 
the  miraculous  gifts  of  the  Spirit.  When  Simon  saw  this 
result,  he  attributed  it  to  the  ceremony  of  imposition  of 
hands,  and  desired  to  hi(y  the  power  to  impart  the  Holy 
Ghost.  His  avarice  was  excited,  for  he  knew  that  he  could 
turn  such  power  to  good  account  among  the  people,  and 
make  a  traffic  of  it.  Therefore  he  was  rebuked.  '  Thou 
hast  neither  part  nor  lot  in  this  matter,'  said  Peter,  ^  for  thy 
heart  is  not  right  in  the  sight  of  God.'     He  had  made  a 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  253 

grievous  mistake ;  he  had  felt  no  concern  about  the  salva- 
tion of  his  soul,  but  only  desired  to  make  merchandise  of 
the  truth.  And  yet  the  great  truth  which  Philip  had 
preached,  Simon  as  certainly  believed  as  did  any  one  else. 

^'If  we  do  not  receive  this  view  of  the  subject,  the  diffi- 
culties of  this  passage  are  absolutely  insurmountable.  We 
must  admit  that  men  can  be  converted  without  the  Holy 
Ghost.  We  must  acknowledge  that  Simon,  a  converted  man, 
desired  to  buy  the  power  to  impart  the  Holy  Grhost.  But 
these  things  cannot  be  true. 

^^As  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  not  a  word  is  said.  No 
creek,  river,  pool,  or  ^  tank'  is  mentioned  from  which  we  are 
allowed  to  infer  that  there  was  an  immersion.  The  burden 
of  proof  rests  on  the  side  of  immersionists  ]  unless  they  can 
show  that  there  was  such  a  stream  or  pool  suitable  for  the 
purpose,  the  silence  of  the  historian  is  an  argument  against 
them.  If  the  baptism  was  hj pouring,  nothing  is  needed  to 
make  the  text  plain  and  easy.  Any  house,  public  or  pri- 
vate, would  be  provided  with  the  necessary  means.  But  if 
there  was  an  immersion^  the  case  is  altered.  There  could 
have  been  few  places,  if,  indeed,  any,  in  Samaria,  suited  to 
the  necessities  of  immersion.  This  is  obviously  true  in  our 
own  country ;  and  Eastern  countries,  so  far  from  being  het- 
tevy  were  really  icorse  provided  with  places  suitable  for  the 
Baptist  ordinance.  Although  they  had  haths,  public  and 
private,  they  were  not  accustomed  to  immerse  themselves  in 
them,  and  nothing  but  an  extravagant  fancy  can  manufac- 
ture an  '  Eastern  bath'  into  a  hona  fide  '  liquid  grave.''  The 
scarcity  of  streams  of  sufficient  depth  is  very  evident,  when 
we  remember  that  a  large  number  of  streams  flowed  into  the 
Jordan — the  waters  of  Lebanon,  Merom,  the  sea  of  Galilee, 
the  Jabbok  river,  and  others — and  yet  the  Jordan  is  but  a 
small  river,  even  at  its  mouth.  But  Samaria  was  not  on  the 
Jordan  river,  but  was  built  upon  the  hill-side,  where  a  quan- 


254  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

tity  of  water  required  for  immersion  could  not  probably  be 
found.  But,  as  I  before  remarked,  it  is  not  our  duty  to 
prove  immersion  was  impossible ;  but  it  is  the  duty  of  tlie 
Baptists  to  prove  that  it  was  even  probable — that  there  could 
have  been  readily  such  obedience  to  our  Saviour's  command 
as  they  require.  If  they  fail  in  this,  the  conclusion  is 
against  them. 

"  Before  I  proceed  to  the  baptism  of  the  eunuch,  I  desire 
to  show  the  opinion  of  Dr.  Belcher,  a  Baptist  minister,  on 
this  last  passage.  I  do  this  in  order  to  show  you,  as  Rich- 
ard Fuller  says,  how  good  men  can  be  led  astray  by  preju- 
dice. Of  Simon,  the  magician,  he  says  :  '  This  man  had 
heard  Philip  preach,  and  had  witnessed  the  number  and 
character  of  his  miracles ;  he  had  seen  the  extensive  recep- 
tion of  the  gospel  in  the  city,  and,  either  deceived  Jiitnself 
by  supposing  Philip  to  be  a  magician,  though  of  a  higher 
order  than  himself,  or  wishing  to  deceive  others,  and  make 
them  his  dupes  again  hereafter,  Simon  also  professed  to 
believe  the  gospel,  and  on  that  profession  of  faith  was  bap- 
tized, and  added  to  the  number  of  the  faithful.  Thus  do 
we  see  that  we  can  never  expect  the  Church,  while  in  a 
wicked  world,  will  be  entirely  free  from  hypocrites.^ — New 
Testament  Baptisms,  pp.  71,  72.  Now  where  does  the 
sacred  writer  say  that  Simon  professed  to  believe  the  gospel  ? 
He  uses  precisely  the  same  expression  about  Simon  that  he 
does  about  the  other  Samaritans — they  all  believed  and  were 
baptized,  and  Simon  also  believed.  Why  do  men  make  this 
magician  a  worse  man  than  he  really  was  1  His  faith  in  the 
facts  which  Philip  preached  was  as  genuine  as  any  other's; 
and  upon  this  faith  he  was  baptized.  That  he  had  not  the 
faith  that  ^  works  by  love  and  purifies  the  heart,'  is  very 
plain ;  nor  has  any  other  unconverted  believer  in  the  Scrip- 
tures. The  reason  which  actuates  Dr.  Belcher  in  giving 
this  character  to  Simon  in  the  face  of  the  text  is  evident. 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  255 

He  will  liave  all  these  Samaritans  to  be  true  and  proper 
Christians — converted  men  before  they  were  baptized — and 
all  this  work  was  done  before  the  Holy  Spirit  had  been  given 
to  any  of  them.  Surely,  then,  they  were  converted  by 
Philip's  ivords,  and  were  re-converted  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 
It  is  not  enough  that  Simon  mistakes  the  nature  of  the  gos- 
pel— that  he  errs  about  the  gift  of  the  Spirit  which  is 
bestowed  upon  sincere  penitents — that  he  desires  to  make 
merchandise  of  Grod's  gifts ;  he  must  be  a  hypocrite 
throughout — professing  to  believe  what  Philip  said,  whilst 
he  did  not  believe.  The  sacred  writer  must  be  contradicted, 
a  man  must  be  made  an  unbeliever  who  is  called  a  believer, 
and  the  Samaritans  must  become  converted  Christians  with- 
out the  Holy  Spirit's  aid ;  and  why  all  this  ?  Because  the 
Baptist  dogma  requires  conversion  before  baptism. 

''  But  we  will  now  turn  our  attention  to  the  case  of 
Philip  and  the  eunuch — the  standing  text  for  every  Bap- 
tist preacher — one  that  is  pointed  to  with  an  air  of  triumph, 
as  furnishing  demonstrative  evidence  of  immersion.  Dr. 
Belcher  thinks  the  name  of  the  eunuch  was  Indich,  and 
gives  Kuinoel  and  Townsend  as  his  authorities — Indich  let 
us  call  him,  then.  He  had  been  to  Jerusalem  to  worship, 
and  was  returning  home  by  way  of  Gaza.  While  he  was  on 
his  way,  the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  directed  Philip  to  overtake 
him,  and  join  himself  to  his  chariot.  When  Philip  found 
him,  Indich  was  reading  the  fifty-third  chapter  of  the  pro- 
phecy of  Isaiah,  which  describes  the  humiliation  and  death 
of  Christ.  The  entire  passage  begins  with  the  I3th  verse 
of  the  fifty-second  chapter,  and  includes  the  fifty-third. 
Philip  asked  him  if  he  understood  what  he  read  ?  Indich 
replied,  '  How  can  I,  except  some  man  should  guide  me  V 
And  he  desired  Philip  that  he  would  come  up  and  sit  with 
him.  Philip  did  so,  and  from  the  passage  in  Isaiah  he 
preached  unto  him  Jesus.     After  a  time  they  came  to  a  cer- 


256  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

tain  water,  when  the  eunuch  exclaimed,  '  See  !  here  is  water  : 
what  doth  hinder  me  to  be  baptized  V  If  immersion  had 
been  the  practice  of  Philip,  he  might  have  replied  with 
great  propriety  :  '  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy  heart — and 
the  water  is  deep  enough — thou  mayest/  It  was  by  no 
means  likely  that  they  came  to  a  river,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  the  sacred  writer  does  not  say  so.  If  it  had  been  the 
Sorek  river,  the  river  of  Egypt,  or  the  brook  of  Eshcol, 
why  is  it  not  so  stated  ?  But  no  mention  is  made  of  a  river, 
brook,  or  fountain,  whilst  it  is  expressly  said  that  the  way 
was  desert.  It  was  not  probable  that  a  considerable  stream 
of  running  water  could  be  found  on  the  road,  and  a  pond  or 
pool  deep  enough  for  immersion  was  out  of  the  question  in 
a  sandy  desert.  The  terms  in  which  the  eunuch  addresses 
Philip  are  positive  proofs  against  immersion.  ^  See  water  V 
exclaims  the  eunuch,  as  the  stream  appears  in  sight,  as  if 
they  had  unexpectedly  fallen  upon  it.  A  stream  three  or 
four  feet  deep,  (and  nothing  less  will  serve  the  purpose  of 
'  dipping,')  at  this  time,  the  dry  season,  would  certainly 
overflow  its  banks  in  the  rainy  season,  and  require  the  estab- 
lishment of  fords,  similar  to  those  of  the  Jordan.  But  the 
geography  of  the  country  absolutely  forbids  such  a  conclu- 
sion ;  no  mention  is  anywhere  made  of  such  a  water-course 
or  of  any/orfZ  between  Jerusalem  and  Gaza.  Let  us  illus- 
trate this  point.  You  know,  Theophilus,  that  there  are 
seven  water-courses  between  Maryville  and  Greenville,  a  dis- 
tance of  fifty  miles;  yet  no  one  of  these  streams  is  knee- 
deep  at  any  time,  unless  when  swollen  by  rains.  Now,  sup- 
pose Philip  and  the  eunuch  had  set  out  from  this  point,  and 
after  Philip's  sermon  the  chariot  came  suddenly  upon  Sandy 
Creek,  about  twenty  miles  from  this,  and  the  eunuch 
exclaims,  ^  See !  here  is  loater :  what  doth  hinder  me  to  be 
baptized  V  Philip  answers,  ^  If  thou  believest  with  all  thy 
heart,  thou  mayest;'  the  chariot  is  stopped;  they  descend. 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  257 

go  info  the  stream,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch,  and  Philip 
baptizes  him;  then  coming  up  out  of  the  water,  Philip 
returns  by  another  route  across  the  country,  whilst  the  cha- 
riot crosses  the  creek,  and  Indich  goes  on  his  way  rejoicing  : 
would  you  say  that  the  eunuch  had  been  immersed  in 
Sandy  Creek  ?" 

''  I  would  say,"  replied  Theophilus,  ^'  that  there  was  some 
doubt  about  it,  for  I  recollect  being  at  Sandy  Creek  Baptist 
Church  not  long  ago,  when  an  unlucky  accident  happened 
there.  The  church  had  scooped  out  a  neat  little  pool  in  the 
creek,  and  run  a  dam  across  a  little  above  the  ford.  On 
Saturday  night,  however,  after  the  appointment  for  baptiz- 
ing on  Sabbath,  a  heavy  rain  fell,  and  washed  away  the  dam, 
and  the  bed  of  the  pool  was  filled  up,  so  that  the  water  was 
not  knee-deep.  By  Sabbath  noon  the  creek  had  run  down, 
and  when  the  people  started  for  the  water  it  was  discovered 
that  the  baptizing  must  be  postponed,  or  else  the  creek  must 
be  dammed  up  again.  But  Elder  Carson  did  not  feel  willing 
to  put  it  off;  so  he  led  the  way,  and  by  the  assistance  of  a 
dozen  negro  fellows  the  piles  were  put  down  again,  and  a 
trough  dug  out.  After  two  or  three  hours'  hard  work  in  the 
hot  sun,  on  the  Sabbath  day^  the  place  was  prepared,  and 
a  young  lady  and  two  young  men  were  'buried'  in  the 
'yielding  wave,'  whilst  Elder  C.  was  'buried'  up  to  the 
knees  in  '  yielding'  mud." 

"  That  was  an  '  imposing  spectacle'  indeed,  Theophilus," 
said  Mr.  Mason,  "  well  calculated  to  illustrate  the  beauty  of 
such  an  ordinance.  If  the  commandment  of  Christ  can  be 
thwarted  by  a  heavy  rain,  and  the  sanctity  of  the  Sabbath 
laid  aside  to  remedy  the  breach,  no  wonder  that  our  Baptist 
friends  complain  of  the  '  heavy  cross'  of  immersion  ! 

"Now  the  illustration  I  have  offered  is  precisely  in  point. 
There  is  more  water  between  Maryville  and  G-reenville  than 
between  Jerusalem  and  Gaza,  yet  no  place  upon  the  roadside 


258  THEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

has  been  found  suitable  for  immersion.  Yet  the  Baptists 
assert  that  there  was  such  a  pool  in  the  desert,  and  there 
the  eunuch  was  immersed ;  but  the  historian  says  no  such 
thing.  He  says  '  they  came  unto  a  certain  water/  (JjXOov  trrt 
Tt  vdcjp,')  or  came  iqjon  a  certain  water,  one  of  the  many 
little  rills  which  formed  the  head-waters  of  the  larger  brooks 
to  the  westward,  and  Indicli  seized  upon  the  first  oppor- 
tunity to  profess  his  faith  in  Christ,  to  be  initiated  into  the 
Qiew  covenant,  as  he  had  already  been  in  the  old.  Philip 
did  not  go  into  the  stream  with  a  stick,  feeling  his  way,  (as 
Baptists  are  now  wont  to  do,)  and  testing  its  depth.  He 
does  not  express  the  least  fear  that  the  servants  will  have 
to  throw  a  dam  across,  or  hunt  up  and  down  the  banks  for  a 
hole  deep  enough — no  such  difficulty  was  in  the  way. 
Wherever  the  chariot  crossed  the  stream,  there  he  baptized 
him,  and  whether  they  both  waded  info  the  water  for  the 
purpose,  or  only  went  to  the  water,  is  a  matter  of  little  con- 
sequence. The  preposition  elg,  into,  does  not  render  it  an 
immersion.  All  that  can  be  brought  out  of  it  is  their 
stepping  into  the  water,  which,  so  far  from  rendering  immer- 
sion a  necessary  consequence,  does  not  require  six  inches 
depth  of  water  to  perform  it  literally.  When  Christ  spat  on 
the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  do  we  understand  that  he 
immersed  them  in  spittle  ?  Yet  Mark  tells  us,  chapter  viii. 
23,  that  Jesus  spat  into,  elg,  his  eyes.  When  Christ  and 
his  disciples  (Luke  xxiv.  28)  drew  nigh  unto,  elg,  the 
village,  did  they  come  into  the  village  whilst  they  were  only 
7iear  it?  When  the  Jews  were  commanded  (Luke  xxi. 
21)  to  flee  to,  elg,  the  mountains,  were  they  to  be  immersed 
into  the  mountains  ?  When  we  are  told  that  John,  chapter 
i.  7,  came /or,  elg,  a  witness,  do  we  understand  that  he  came 
into  a  witness?  These  examples  are  taken  from  various 
places,  and  illustrate  the  folly  of  tying  down  a  preposition  to 
one  meaning.     And  if  the  preposition  into  does  not  prove 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  259 

immersion,  neitlier  does  ek,  out  of,  require  it.  This  prepo- 
sition (e/c)  is  rendered  from  about  one  hundred  and  eighty 
times,  and  only  one  hundred  and  fifty  times  out  of.  If 
there  be  any  force  in  usage,  then,  as  it  is  oftener  rendered 
from  than  out  of,  such  ought  to  be  its  meaning  here.  But, 
as  I  have  already  said,  no  argument  can  be  based  upon  a 
preposition.  If  we  apply  Baptist  logic  to  our  own  preposi- 
tions, we  destroy  the  language — such  a  mass  of  absurdities 
as  an  English  book  would  present  if  judged  by  their  rules, 
can  hardly  be  found  anywhere.  We  must  have  something 
more  than  going  down  ^into'  and  coming  up  'out  of  the 
water  to  prove  immersion.  Philip  went  down  to,  etf,  the 
city  of  Samaria,  as  stated  in  the  15th  verse  of  this  chapter, 
yet  he  was  not  immersed  into  the  city.  Jesus  came  down 
from,  eK,  the  mountain,  yet  he  had  not  been  immersed 
into  it. 

''A  plain  statement  of  the  eunuch's  baptism  is  against 
his  immersion.  An  extravagant  fancy,  one  that  can  dij)  a 
lake  in  the  blood  of  a  mouse,  that  can  dij>  a  man  in  a  heavy 
dew,  that  can  dij)  the  apostles  in  a  rushing  windy  or  the 
sound  that  filled  the  house,  or  in  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  can  do  almost  any  thing  recorded  by  Baron  Mun- 
chausen. To  such  a  fancy  the  Arabian  Nights  is  a  record 
of  facts,  Gulliver's  Travels  in  Lilliput  and  Brobdignag  are 
historical  truths.  But  plain  men,  who  are  not  acquainted 
with  the  wonderful  properties  of  metaphors,  hyperboles,  and 
rhapsodies,  are  apt  to  take  a  common-sense  view  of  the  case. 
If  there  are  among  us — in  a  country  abounding  with  streams, 
from  a  mountain  rill  to  the  great  Father  of  Waters — if  thero 
are  here  only  a  few  places,  and  in  some  large  sections  none 
at  all,  which  nature  has  provided  as  a  convenient  '  liquid 
grave'  for  the  believer,  it  requires  no  fancy  to  suppose  such 
conveniences  to  be  very  rare  in  a  desert.  We  must  suppose 
that  Philip  carried  an  extra  suit  of  clothes  with  him,  or  else 


260  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

he  went  to  Azotus  in  loct  garments — or  imagine  that  they 
were  miraculously  dried.  We  must  suppose  that  they 
happened  to  find  a  pool  deep  enough  for  immersion,  that 
loth  Philip  and  the  eunuch  knew  it  loas  deep  enough,  with- 
out measuring  it.  We  must  suppose  all  these  things,  to 
get  ready  for  an  immersion;  and  then,  to  complete  it,  we 
must  assume  that  l3a7TTl^G)  means  to  dij),  and  nothing  else. 
These  things  are  not  in  the  text,  and  therefore  immersion  is 
not  there. 

"  I  will  illustrate  this  by  an  incident  which  happened  a 
few  years  since.  A  young  man  came  to  unite  with  a  Pres- 
byterian church,  and  requested  the  minister  to  immerse  him. 
The  minister  had  never  baptized  any  one  in  this  way,  and 
endeavored  to  reason  the  young  man  out  of  his  position.  It 
was  in  vain,  however,  for  he  persisted  in  being  baptized 
precisely  as  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch.  ^And  how  was 
that?'  asked  the  minister.  'Why,'  said  the  young  man,  'I 
read  that  they  2uent  down  into  the  ivater,  both  Philip  and  the 
eunuch,  and  he  baptized  him.  Then  it  is  said,  they  came 
up  out  of  the  water.  I  want  to  be  baptized  in  that  way.' 
'  Very  well,'  says  the  minister,  '  will  you  be  satisfied  with 
that  V  '  Yes,'  replied  the  young  man.  '■  I  agree  to  it,' 
said  the  minister,  and  the  time  and  place  were  appointed. 
A  large  crowd  assembled  to  witness  the  novel  scene.  The 
minister  took  the  young  man  by  the  hand,  and  as  they 
waded  into  the  water,  he  repeated  these  words:  ^And  they 
went  down  into  the  loater,  both  Philip  and  the  eunuch.' 
When  they  stopped,  the  minister  took  a  handful  of  water 
and  poured  it  on  his  head,  saying :  ^And  he  haptized  him.' 
Then  leading  the  young  man  out,  he  concluded,  ^And  they 
came  up  out  of  the  water.'  Thus  the  conditions  of  the  text 
were  fulfilled  to  the  letter,  and  yet  the  young  man  was  not 
immersed. 

*'  You  see  from  this  incident  that  the  whole  controversy 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  261 

must  turn  again  upon  the  word  haptidzo.  And  tliat  the 
minister  was  right  in  his  understanding  of  it,  we  have 
already  seen  in  the  classical  argument.  So  that,  after  all 
this  great  ^  shibboleth/  this  '■  mathematical  demonstration'  of 
immersion,  as  some  have  called  it,  is  no  demonstration  at  all. 
Fancy  and  possibilities  must  come  to  the  relief  of  the  inter- 
preter if  he  find  immersion  here.  As  a  plain  record  of  a 
fact,  there  is  nothing  of  it  in  the  text. 

^'  We  will  dispose  of  this  passage  by  giving  a  fact  which 
illustrates  the  subject.  Dr.  Belcher,  the  Baptist  minister 
quoted  a  while  ago,  says,  on  the  authority  of  Dr.  Kitto,  that 
this  eunuch  preached  the  gospel  in  Abyssinia,  his  native 
country,  on  his  return.  The  queen,  Candace,  was  the  first 
to  be  baptized,  and  the  province  of  Tigre,  nearest  to  Meroe, 
the  capital,  was  the  first  to  erhbrace  Christianity.  This 
country  is  so  remote  from  all  other  nations  that  we  may  sup- 
pose they  have  kept  up  the  original  customs.  Now  let  us 
hear  the  testimony  of  a  distinguished  traveller,  as  to  the 
Tiiode  of  Abyssinian  baptism. 

''  Mr.  Salt,  a  British  traveller,  gives  us  the  whole  cere- 
mony of  baptizing  a  Mussulman  boy  :  ^  The  attendant  priests 
stood  round  in  the  form  of  a  semicircle,  the  boy  being 
placed  in  the  centre,  and  our  party  ranged  in  front.  After 
a  few  minutes  interval  employed  in  singing  psalms,  some  of 
the  priests  took  the  boy,  and  washed  him  all  over  very  care- 
fully in  a  large  basin  of  water.  While  this  was  passing,  a 
smaller  font,  called  me-te-mak,  which  is  always  kept  outside 
of  the  churches,  owing  to  an  unbaptized  person  not  being 
allowed  to  enter  the  church,  was  placed  in  the  middle  of  the 
area,  filled  with  water,  which  the  priest  consecrated  by 
prayer,  waving  the  incense  repeatedly  over  it,  and  dropping 
into  it  a  portion  of  the  meiron  in  the  shape  of  a  cross.  The 
boy  was  then  brought  back,  dripping  from  head  to  foot,  and 
again  placed  naked  and  upright  in   the  centre,  and  was  re- 


262  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

quired  to  renounce  tlie  devil  and  all  his  works,  wliicli  was 
performed  by*  his  repeating  a  given  formula  four  separate 
times,  turning  each  time  toward  a  different  point  of  the 
compass.  I  named  the  child  George,  when  I  was  requested 
to  say  the  Belief,  and  the  Lord's  Prayer,  and  to  make  much 
the  same  promises  as  those  required  by  the  Established 
Church  of  England.  The  head  priest  afterward  laid  hold 
of  the  boy,  dijyping  his  own  hand  into  the  water ^  and  crossed 
him  over  the  forehead,  pronouncing,  at  the  same  moment, 
^'  George,  I  baptize  thee,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost. '^  The  whole  company  then  knelt  down, 
and  joined  in  reciting  the  Lord's  Prayer.' 

^^  Such,  then,''  continued  Mr.  Mason,  "  is  Abyssinian  bap- 
tism at  the  present  time.  And,  as  you  perceive,  the  washing 
of  the  whole  body  was  only  preparatory  to  the  act  of  bap- 
tism. A  distinction  is  made  between  the  preparation  for 
and  the  administration  of  the  rite.  These  spiritual  descend- 
ants of  the  eunuch  do  not  baptize  by  immersion,  and  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  how  they  should  change  the  entire 
ordinance,  without  any  motive  whatever  for  so  doing.  "We 
may  well  imagine  that  the  sign  of  the  cross,  the  anointing 
with  oil,  and  similar  additions,  could  be  made  to  the  act  of 
plunging,  if  that  was  originally  the  practice,  but  we  cannot  see 
how  one  act  should  be  substituted  for  another,  if  they  received 
from  their  first  preachers  the  Baptist  doctrine  of  immersion. 

"  The  next  example  of  scriptural  baptism  is  the  case  of 
Saul  of  Tarsus,  afterward  Paul  the  Apostle.  On  his  way 
to  Damascus,  persecuting  the  Church  of  Christ,  he  was  con- 
vinced of  his  error,  and  directed  to  go  to  Damascus,  where 
he  would  receive  instruction  from  one  Ananias,  a  Christian 
teacher.  When  Ananias  found  him  blind,  he  laid  his  hands 
upon  Saul,  who  received  sight  forthwith,  '  and  arose,  and  was 
baptized.'  This  was  in  the  house  of  Judas,  in  Damascus. 
We  are  not  informed  of  a  visit  to  a  pool  or  a  river ;  we  are 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  263 

not  told  of  a  tank  or  bath,  in  which  Saul  was  immersed. 
He  received  his  sight  in  a  house,  and  was  baptized  in  a 
house.  If  this  baptism  was  performed  hj  j^ouring,  there  is 
no  difficulty  in  the  case — the  narrative  is  plain  and  easy  to 
be  understood.  If  it  was  an  immersion,  the  necessities  of 
the  case  require  a  fuller  statement.  There  might  have  been 
a  pool  in  the  house — but  does  the  historian  say  so  ?  The 
house  77iai/  have  been  on  the  bank  of  a  river — but  where  is 
the  proof  that  it  was  ?  It  is  possible  that  the  act  was  immer- 
sion, instead  of  scriptural  haptism,  but  the  Bible  does  not 
assert  it.  If  we  take  the  Bible  account,  divested  of  Baptist 
additions  and  qualifications,  the  baptism  of  Saul  was  not  an 
immersion  in  water. 

'^  The  baptism  of  the  Grentiles  in  the  house  of  Cornelius 
is  exactly  similar  to  that  of  Paul.  The  preaching  of  Peter 
was  heard  in  a  house,  the  Gentiles  believed  there,  and  there 
they  were  baptized,  first  by  the  Holy  Grhost  and  then  with 
water.  No  adjournment  to  a  stream  or  a  pool  is  indicated. 
No  mention  is  made  of  a  ^  tank'  or  ^  bath.'  Not  a  word  is 
said  of  the  '  yielding  wave'  and  the  '  liquid  grave.'  It  is  a 
plain  narrative,  and  informs  us  of  the  time,  place,  and  cir- 
cumstances of  the  baptism,  without  mentioning  a  solitary 
fact  which  could  lead  us  to  believe  that  immersion  was  the 
mode  employed. 

''  The  case  of  Lydia  and  her  household  is  the  next  in 
order.  She  was  a  seller  of  purple,  living  in  Thyatira,  and 
at  the  time  of  Paul's  visit  was  staying  at  Philippi.  Paul 
first  met  Lydia  on  the  Sabbath  day  by  the  river-side,  where 
the  people  were  in  the  habit  of  resorting  for  prayer.  Paul 
improved  the  occasion,  and  preached  to  the  assembly,  where- 
upon Lydia  believed  and  was  baptized.  Where?  In  the 
river  ?  The  historian  does  not  say  so.  It  was  possible  that 
she  was  immersed  in  the  river,  but  if  the  writer  of  Acts 
does  not  say  so,  we  have  no  right  to  assert  it.     We  have  no 


264  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

right  to  add  any  thing  to  the  word  of  God — we  are  con- 
strained to  receive  all  its  statements  without  subtraction  or 
addition.  If  Lydia  was  immersed  in  the  stream,  certainly 
we  would  have  been  so  informed.  The  absence  of  such  in- 
formation is  the  strongest  proof  that  can  be  offered  against 
her  immersion. 

'^  Not  long  after  Paul  was  put  in  prison  in  Philippi,  and 
after  the  doors  were  miraculously  opened,  the  jailer  was  con- 
victed, professed  faith  in  Christ,  and  was  baptized.  This 
was  in  a  jail,  from  which  Paul  refused  to  escape.  It  is  pos- 
sihle  that  there  was  a  large  pool  in  the  middle  of  the  jail- 
yard,  which  was  both  large  enough  and  deep  enough,  and 
that  the  jailer  was  immersed  there  with  all  his  house — but  is 
it  prohahle  ?  Who  will  assert  that  there  was  such  a  pool  in 
the  jail  ?  The  sacred  penman  says  nothing  about  it,  and 
we  may  just  as  readily  assert  that  a  river  ran  through  the 
jail-yard — this  was  possible,  but  was  it  true?  Is  it  not 
strange  that  no  mention  should  be  made  of  these  tanks  and. 
pools  ?  When  Christ  would  have  a  blind  man  to  do  a  certain 
thing,  he  commands  him  to  icash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam — not 
his  whole  body,  but  his  eyes — the  evangelist  tells  us  he  did 
wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam.  And  yet  in  the  whole  New 
Testament  we  have  not  a  single  example  of  baptism  in  a 
pool.  '  Tanks'  are  very  beautiful  things,  the  products  of 
immersionist  logic ;  it  is  a  pity  that  thei/  are  not  mentioned 
at  all  in  the  New  Testament !  We  cannot  get  their  assist- 
ance to  help  out  the  cause  of  immersion  without  getting  out 
of  the  Bible.  We  must  give  lively  exercise  to  our  fancy, 
we  must  place  in  the  text  statements  that  are  not  there,  we 
must  have  a  '  tank'  or  a  '  pool'  in  every  house,  holding  at 
least  one  hundred  gallons  of  water,  in  order  to  make  out  a 
case  of  immersion.  These  tanks  or  pools  are  not  mentioned 
in  the  text,  nor  were  they  in  existence.  It  is  very  easy  to  sai/ 
that  the  baths  used  in  the  East  are  every  way  suitable  for 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  265 

immersion,  but  we  require  proof  of  the  fact.  D'Olisson, 
speaking  of  tlie  baths  of  the  women  of  the  East,  says : 
'They  scarcely  ever  immerse  their  bodies  in  water.  The 
large  marble  urns  which  are  in  the  form  of  bathing-tubs  arc 
for  invalids.'  Denon,  describing  a  bath  in  Egypt,  says : 
'  The  bather  is  irmndatecl  with  water,  which  the  attendants 
take  out  with  a  small  Lasin,  and  pour  over  his  body.' 
These  quotations  show  that  at  the  public  baths  immersion  is 
not  practiced,  and  these  would  be  necessarily  larger  and  more 
commodious  than  the  private  ones. 

"  Having  gone  through  all  the  examples  of  New  Testa- 
ment baptism,  except  those  which  are  mentioned  in  the 
eighteenth  and  nineteenth  chapters  of  Acts,  which  have  no 
peculiarity  about  them — the  first  stating  that  some  of  the 
Corinthians  were  baptized,  and  the  latter  relating  to  the  bap- 
tism of  twelve  men  who  had  been  baptized  first  by  John  the 
Baptist — I  shall  now  proceed  to  show,  from  the  New  Testa- 
ment itself,  that  the  Jews  kept  no  '  tanks,'  or  '  pools,'  suita- 
ble for  immersion. 

"  We  are  informed  in  the  seventh  chapter  of  Mark  that 
the  Jews  were  very  scrupulous  in  their  adherence  to  certain 
traditions  of  the  elders.  I  will  read  the  whole  passage  : 
'  Then  came  together  unto  him  the  Pharisees,  and  certain 
of  the  Scribes,  which  came  from  Jerusalem.  And 'when 
they  saw  some  of  his  disciples  eat  bread  with  defiled,  that  is 
to  say  with  unwashen  (^dviTTTOLg')  hands,  they  found  fault.  For 
the  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jews,  except  they  v:ash  (ytipcjvrai^ 
their  hands  oft,  eat  not,  holding  the  tradition  of  the  elders. 
And  when  they  come  from  the  market,  except  they  tvash, 
{l3anTLO0)VTat,)  they  eat  not.  And  many  other  things  there 
be,  which  they  have  received  to  hold,  as  the  icashing 
{[3aTTTia[ioi!g')  of  cups,  and  pots,  brazen  vessels,  and  of 
tables.  Then  the  Pharisees  and  Scribes  asked  him,  Why 
walk  not  thy  disciples  according  to  the  tradition  of  the 
12 


266  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

elders,  but  eat  bread  with  unwashen  {aviTrroig)  hands  ?  He 
answered  and  said  unto  them,  Well  hath  Esaias  prophesied 
of  you  hypocrites,  as  it  is  written.  This  people  honoreth  me 
with  their  lips,  but  their  heart  is  far  from  rne.  Howbeit  in 
vain  do  they  worship  me,  teaching  for  doctrines  the  com- 
mandments of  men.  For  laying  aside  the  commandment  of 
God,  ye  hold  the  tradition  of  men,  as  the  tvasliing 
(fia-nnoiiovg')  of  pots  and  cups ;  and  many  other  such  like 
things  ye  do/  Our  Saviour  then  proceeds  to  show  them 
how  they  have  corrupted  the  commandments  of  God,  and 
after  ^  he  had  called  all  the  people  unto  him,  he  said  unto 
them,  Hearken  unto  me  every  one  of  you,  and  understand  : 
There  is  nothing  from  without  a  man,  that  entering  into  him 
can  defile  him :  but  the  things  which  come  out  of  him, 
those  are  they  that  defile  the  man/ 

^'  The  Pharisees,  and  all  the  Jeivs,  held  these  traditions 
about  the  hajjtisins  of  the  hands,  the  cups,  pots,  brazen  ves- 
sels, and  tables.  The  question  then  arises.  How  were  these 
baptisms  performed  ?  Were  the  pots,  tables,  and  brazen 
vessels  of  the  Jews  immersed  ?  They  mujlit  have  been,  it 
is  true.  It  was  possible  that  every  Jew  might  possess  a  pool 
in  his  yard,  supplied  by  an  artesian  well,  and  that  his  fam- 
ily might  occupy  one-half  of  their  time  in  taking  these 
things  out  of  the  house  in  order  to  immerse  them  in  the 
pool.  I  say  that  these  things  might  have  been  true — if 
artesian  wells  had  been  in  use,  and  the  quantity  of  water 
employed  by  the  Jews  had  been  as  great  as  the  Baptists 
require  for  their  ordinance.  If  the  Jews  had  nothing  else 
to  do  but  to  practice  the  dipping  of  their  domestic  utensils, 
tables,  or  couches,  every  time  they  contracted  ceremonial  im- 
purity, they  were  surely  in  easy  circumstances.  Every  time 
any  one  visited  the  market,  he  must  immerse  himself  on  his 
return — this  he  must  do  if  it  happened  twenty  times  a  day. 
If  a  visitor  fresh  from  the  market  happened  to  touch  a  table 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  267 

or  couch,  that  must  be  dipjped  also.  A  dififerent  ^tauk' 
must  be  used  if  more  tlian  one  article  was  d/ipped,  or  else 
the  water  must  be  changed,  because  the  water  becomes  de- 
filed after  it  is  once  used.  Thus  it  would  require  several 
hundred  gallons  of  water,  in  all  probability,  to  cleanse  the 
furniture  of  a  Jewish  house  and  kitchen.  Such  are  the  re- 
quirements which  the  Baptists  make  of  the  Jews;  but  the 
best  reason  for  their  non-performance  of  immersion  in  these 
cases  is  that  it  was  altogether  unnecessary.  The  strictest 
Pharisee  could  have  desired  nothing  more  than  the  sprink- 
ling of  water  upon  his  furniture  in  order  to  purify  it.  This 
was  the  method  pursued  under  the  Mosaic  law,  in  the  case 
of  persons  defiled  by  leprosy,  or  by  touching  a  dead  body. 

"  We  are  not  left  to  grope  our  way  altogether  in  the  dark, 
however,  on  this  subject.  There  is  a  passage  in  the  New 
Testament  which  informs  us  about  the  size  of  the  vessels 
used  by  the  Jews  in  their  purifications.  This  passage  occurs 
in  the  second  chapter  of  John,  in  the  account  of  our 
Saviour's  attendance  upon  the  marriage  in  Cana  of  Gralilee. 
During  the  feast  the  wine  was  exhausted,  and  Jesus  was  in- 
formed of  the  fact  by  his  mother.  'And  there  were  set  there 
six  water-pots  of  stone,  aftei-  the  manner  of  the  purifying  of 
the  Jews,  containing  two  or  three  firkins  apiece.^  Now,  why 
were  these  water-pots  set  tkere  ?  Because  the  Jews  would 
not  eat  of  the  feast  until  their  hands  were  washed.  How 
were  their  hands  washed  ?  It  is  not  likely  that  the  people 
dipped  their  hands  into  them,  because  we  are  informed  that 
they  were  empty  when  Jesus  used  them.  The  water  had 
been  dipped  out  and  poured  upon  the  hands  of  the  guests 
by  the  servants  in  attendance.  Jesus  ordered  them  to  be 
filled  again,  and  the  water  was  changed  into  good  wine. 
The  Greek  word  vdptat,  hudriai,  means  water-pots,  oy  pitch- 
ers, and  is  used  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  same  Grospel, 
where  it  is  said  the  Samaritan  woman  left  her  water-pot,  or 


268  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR; 

intcTier,  wliich  she  liad  brought  to  the  well  for  water.  We 
are  told  that  these  water-pots  contained  two  or  three  firkins 
apiece.  The  firkin  (Greek  fiETprjrrjg)  contained  about  seven 
gallons  and  a  half — the  largest  of  the  water-pots  held  about 
twenty-two  gallons  and  a  half,  according  to  this  measure- 
ment. 

"  These  vessels  were  used  for  the  purpose  of  purifying, 
not  the  hands  alone,  for  they  contained  more  water  than  was 
necessary  for  that,  and  yet  it  was  impossible  to  immerse 
either  a  man  or  a  couch  in  any  one  of  them.  This  is  a  suf- 
ficient argument  against  the  dipping  of  the  domestic  uten- 
sils. But  a  stronger  argument  may  be  derived  from  the 
fact  that  the  Jews  invariably  required  a  purifying  element 
to  be  kept  in  ^  pure  vessel :  this  is  obviously  true.  Suppose 
an  impure  vessel  should  be  dipped  into  one  of  these  water- 
pots — not  only  would  the  water  become  impure,  but  the  ves- 
sel containing  it  must  also  be  dipped  to  remove  its  defile- 
ment. This  larger  vessel  becomes  defiled  in  turn,  and  thus 
we  proceed  indefinitely.  At  each  step  the  dipping  of  the 
thing  to  be  cleansed  into  the  water-pot  becomes  more  absurd. 
The  truth  is,  a  dean  person  took  a  clean  bunch  of  hyssop, 
dipped  it  into  the  water,  and  then  sprinkled  the  defiled  gar- 
ment, pot,  cup,  table,  or  couch.  Thus  the  same  vessel 
would  answer  for  the  purification  of  any  number  of  articles. 
The  Jews  themselves  washed  or  purified  their  ban  ds,  not  by  dip- 
ping them  into  the  water-pot,  but  by  having  the  water  poured 
on  them.  Thus  the  Pharisee  mentioned  in  Luke,  eleventh 
chapter,  wondered  that  our  Saviour  did  not  wasli  before  din- 
ner; that  is,  baptize  his  hands  before  dinner — the  baptism 
of  the  hands  being  customary  before  eating.  This  hap)tism 
was  administered  by,  and  was  often  used  as  the  badge  of,  a 
servant.  ^  Here  is  Elisha,  the  son  of  Shaphat,  i^hich.  p)oured 
water  on  the  hands  of  Elijah.^  2  Kings  iii.  11.  That  is. 
Here  is  Elisha,  the  servant  of  Elijah.     The  usual  manner  of 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  269 

purifying  the  hands,  face,  etc.,  we  have  thus  described  by 
D'Ohsson  :  ^A  copper  vessel  is  placed  before  the  person,  sit- 
ting on  a  piece  of  red  cloth,  to  prevent  the  carpet  or  mat 
from  being  wet;  a  servant  kneeling  on  the  gronnd  j) ours  out 
icater  for  his  master,  another  holds  a  cloth  destined  for  those 
purifications.  The  person  begins  by  baring  the  arm  as  far 
as  the  elbow,  then  washes  his  hands,  mouth,  nostrils,  face, 
arms,'  etc.  This  account  is  undoubtedly  true,  and  fully 
illustrates  the  passage  we  are  examining." 

''If  I  remember  rightly,"  said  Theophilus,  "Theo- 
dosia  tells  us  that  the  Jewish  Rabbi  Maimonides  says  the 
beds,  tables,  and  couches  were  literally  immersed,  and  that 
the  Jews  were  very  careful  to  cover  them  all  over  in  water. 
Have  you  examined  into  the  truth  of  these  quotations,  Mr. 
Mason?" 

''  Sufficiently  to  be  convinced  that  '  Theodosia'  is  neither 
capable  nor  desirous  of  doing  Maimonides  justice.  I  say 
incapable^  because  I  doubt  whether  the  author  ever  saw  the 
Rabbi's  commentary  from  which  he  quotes,  whilst  the  fre- 
quent misrepresentations  of  more  common  works  incline  me 
to  the  belief  that,  since  he  serves  his  purpose,  it  makes  little 
difference  with  him  liow  it  is  done.  Here,  Theophilus,  take 
'  Theodosia,'  and  let  us  examine  the  author's  statements. 
Read  the  words  which  are  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  Pedo- 
baptist  Jones." 

"  '  Now,  so  far  as  the  cups,  and  pots,  and  vessels  are  con- 
cerned, the  matter  is  made  entirely  plain  by  turning  to 
Leviticus  xi.  32  :  ''  Whether  it  be  any  vessel  of  wood,  or 
raiment,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever  vessel  it  be,  wherein 
any  work  is  done,  it  must  be  jput  into  the  ivater,  and  it  shall 
be  unclean  until  the  evening,  and  so  it  shall  be  cleansed."  '  " 

''  Stop  a  moment,  Theophilus  ]  this  is  a  quotation  from 
the  Mosaic  law — does  Christ  upbraid  the  Jews  for  keeping 
that  law  ?" 


270  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^^No,  sir;  lie  charges  these  baptisms  of  cups,  pots,  and 
tables  to  the  traditions  of  the  elders/' 

"  So  lie  does,  indeed ;  but  '  Theodosia'  condemns  Christ 
by  justifying  the  Jews  from  their  own  law.  Here  is  the 
first  flaw.  John  the  Evangelist  says  these  baptisms  were 
traditions  of  the  elders;  they  were  not,  then,  the  command- 
ments of  God.  This  quotation  from  the  Levitical  law  is  not 
in  point.  The  author  only  takes  enough  of  the  verse  to  suit 
his  purpose,  the  remainder  he  leaves  out.  Now,  Theophilus, 
if  you  have  not  looked  at  the  passage  in  Leviticus,  I  have 
no  doubt  this  author  has  produced  a  false  impression  upon 
your  mind.     How  do  you  understand  it  V 

"  That  any  vessel  of  wood,  or  in  which  any  work  is  done, 
was  to  be  put  into  water  whenever  in  any  manner  defiled.^' 

"  Yes,  such  seems  to  be  the  impression  '  Theodosia' 
designs  to  make;  and  yet  it  is  untrue.  The  law,  having 
specified  certain  animals  and  reptiles  as  unclean,  such  as  the 
weasel,  the  mouse,  the  tortoise,  and  others,  prescribes  the 
manner  of  cleansing  the  vessels  of  the  house  in  certain 
cases.  I  will  read  the  whole  verse.  'And  upon  whatsoever 
any  of  them,  lohen  they  are  dead,  doth  fall,  it  shall  be 
unclean ;  whether  it  be  any  vessel  of  wood,  or  raiment,  or 
skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever  vessel  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is 
done,  it  must  be  put  into  water,  and  it  shall  be  unclean  until 
the  even ;  so  it  shall  be  cleansed.'  So  you  see  this  extraor- 
dinary immersion  of  the  articles  was  in  consequence  of  an 
unclean  animal  falling  on  them  when  it  was  dead.  Christ 
would  not  chide  them  for  such  an  act  as  that,  because  he 
had  given  them  that  very  law.  It  was  the  baptism  of  the 
cups,  pots,  and  brazen  vessels  which  he  condemned,  not 
their  immersion  to  purify  them  from  the  contact  with  a  dead 
body.  Read  on,  Theophilus,  and  see  how  'Uncle  Jones* 
gets  converted  from  the  error  of  his  ways." 

''  '  From  this  it  is  evident  that  the  cups  and  other  vessels 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  271 

were  immersed,  or  ^^ put  into  the  water  f^  but  the  word 
translated  table  may  mean  also  a  coucli  or  bed ;  and  liow  the 
beds  and  tables  could  be  immersed  I  do  not  so  easily  under- 
stand.' ^The  difficulty  will  all  vanish/  said  Mr.  Courtney, 
'  if  you  will  remember  that  the  little  stool  to  hold  his  plate y 
which  stood  at  the  head  of  each  guest  as  he  reclined  upon 
the  floor,  was  called  a  table,  and  the  mat  or  cloth  which  he 
lay  upon  was  called  a  couch  or  bed ;  and  either  of  these 
could  be  immersed  as  readily  as  the  cups.  They  had  no 
massive  mahogany  tables,  or  beds  containing  sixty  pounds 
of  feathers,  as  we  have.'  " 

'■^  So  the  Jews  had  nothing  but  little  stools  for  tables,  and 
cloths  or  mats  for  beds.  Truly  this  was  a  primitive  style  of 
living;  but,  unfortunately,  the  inspired  writers  flatly  con- 
tradict our  friend  Theodosia.  The  prophet  Amos,  in  the 
sixth  chapter,  condemns  the  Jews  for  their  h^xurious  living  : 
'  Ye  that  put  far  away  the  evil  day,  and  cause  the  seat  of 
violence  to  come  near;  that  lie  upon  BEDS  of  IVORY,  and 
stretch  themselves  upon  their  couches.'  Yet  they  had  no 
'  massive  mahogany  tables,'  or  '■  beds  containing  sixty  pounds 
of  feathers  !'  Mahogany  they  had  not,  perhaps ;  but  they 
had  both  a  more  ^  massive  and  more  costli/  material,  for 
they  used  ivo7\y  beds. 

"  This  silly  assertion  about  the  little  stools,  mats,  and 
cloths  is  unworthy  of  further  notice.  One  quotation,  how- 
ever, from  the  best  authority  extant  will  be  of  service : 
'  The  more  opulent  had  (as  those  in  the  East  still  have)  fine 
carpets,  couches,  or  divans  and  sofas,  on  which  they  sat,  lay, 
and  slept.  2  Kings  iv.  10.  In  later  times  their  couches 
were  sj^lendid,  and  the  frames  inlaid  with  ivory,  (Amos  vi. 
4,)  and  the  coverlids  rich  and  perfumed.  Proverbs  vii.  16, 
17.  On  these  so/as,  in  the  latter  ages  of  the  Jewish  state, 
they  universally  reclined  when  taking  their  meals;  resting 
on  their  side,  with  their  heads  toward  the  table,  so  that  their 


272  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

feet  were  accessible  to  one  wlio  came  behind  the  couch/ — 
Home's  Introduction,  vol.  ii.,  p.  154.  Some  of  the  Jews, 
perhaps,  had  but  few  articles  of  furniture;  but  they  were 
not  the  Pharisees ;  that  proud  and  haughty  sect  lived  in  the 
most  luxurious  manner,  notwithstanding  their  boasts  of  supe- 
rior sanctity.  It  would  not  be  impossible  to  find  Americans 
without  even  a  rude  table  in  their  houses;  but  this  does  not 
prove  that  there  are  no  such  articles  in  general  use  among 
us.  But  read  on  :  let  us  get  to  the  testimony  of  Mai- 
monides." 

"  ^  But  we  have  other  testimony  besides  that  of  Mark  on 
this  subject.  AVhat  if  I  show  you  from  the  writings  of  a 
learned  Hebrew,  that  the  bods  and  tables  not  only  could  be 
immersed,  but  that  their  immersion  was  hah itualli/  practiced 
by  the  superstitious  Pharisees  V  '^ 

^'That  will  help  us  very  much  indeed,"  said  Mr.  Mason; 
^'if  Theodosia  will  do  that,  we  shall  be  much  obliged. 
Hahitually  immersed,  she  says,  by  the  superstitious  Phari- 
sees. The  warrant  which  our  fair  friend  gives  them  is  from 
the  iDorcl  of  God,  and  yet  they  are  superstitious  because 
they  obey  it.     This  is  another  y?aMJ  in  the  vase.     Read  on." 

"  'This  learned  and  eminent  Rabbi,  commonly  called 
Rabbi  Maimonides,  says,  in  his  Commentary:  ''Every  vessel 
of  wood,  as  a  tahle  or  Led,  receives  defilement,  and  these 
were  washed  by  covering  in  loater ;  and  very  nice  and  par- 
ticular they  were,"  he  adds,  "that  they  might  be  covered  all 
over.''  '  " 

"  Now,  Theophilus,  see  how  '  Theodosia'  entraps  herself. 
A  moment  ago  the  author  says  the  mat  or  cloth  was  the 
heel ;  now  Maimonides  is  brought  in,  and  he  testifies  that  it 
was  a  vessel  of  wood.  The  '  learned  Rabbi'  destroys  the 
mat  and  cloth  argument  at  a  blow.  The  hed  was  made  of 
wood,  and  often  inlaid  with  ivory.  But  the  Rabbi  says,  'ia 
his  Commentary  :'  where  ?" 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         273 

^^  The  book  does  not  say/^  replied  Theophilus. 

^'  No,  and  the  author  does  not  Icnow  where  the  quotation 
is — he  could  not  affirm  that  there  is  such  a  passage  in  Mai- 
mouides.  The  ^  Commentary'  was  originally  written  in 
Arabic,  and  has  only  been  translated  into  Hebrew  and 
Latin.  Where  Theodosia  got  the  quotation  I  know  not,  but 
of  one  thing  I  am  certain,  it  was  not  taken  directly  from 
the  work  of  the  Rabbi.  It  is  impossible  to  find  a  quotation, 
given  without  chapter  or  page,  where  the  work  is  extensive 
— but  the  internal  evidence  is  conclusive  that  it  is  a  spurious 
quotation.  The  style  is  not  that  of  Maimonides ;  he  is 
made  to  speak  of  past,  not  present  customs ;  there  is  nothing 
in  the  sentence  which  would  identify  it  as  the  language  of  a 
Jew.  Doubtless  some  English  writer  has  read  the  Rabbi  on 
the  purifications  from  the  dead  required  by  the  law;  he 
gives  his  own  words  instead  of  those  of  the  Rabbi,  and 
Theodosia  follows  suit,  giving  the  Jew  the  credit  for  the 
Englishman's  words.  This  is  certainly  a  mark  of  a  candid 
mind.  But  the  rule  in  controversy  requires  us  to  ignore  an 
authority  which  is  not  located;  it  is  not  enough  to  quote 
from  a  large  volume ;  the  chapter  at  least  must  be  given,  or 
else  the  evidence  is  thrown  out.  Let  Theodosia  tell  us 
where  Maimonides  says  the  tables  and  beds  were  immersed, 
and  we  will  then  ascertain  why  it  was  done,  and  show  that 
it  had  no  reference  to  this  passage  in  Mark.  Until  this  is 
done,  I  shall  take  the  privilege  of  debate,  and  deny  that  the 
Jewish  Rabbi  says  any  such  thing. 

'^  We  have  examined  all  the  historical  passages  in  the 
New  Testament.  We  shall  now  turn  our  attention  to  the 
figurative  allusions  of  the  inspired  writers  to  the  ordinance 
of  baptism.  The  first  in  order  is  that  in  the  sixth  chapter 
of  the  letter  to  the  Romans.  I  call  this  2i  figurative  allusion 
to  baptism,  only  in  courtesy  to  the  views  of  others.  I 
think  I  will  show  you  that  this  passage  is  not  understood  by 
12* 


274  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

many  wlio  profess  to  expound  it.  Paul's  letter  to  tlie 
Romans  is  a  masterly  argument.  It  commences  with,  the 
proof  of  universal  depravity ;  then  convicts,  first  the  Gentiles, 
then  the  Jews,  proving  that  the  Jew  is  not  a  whit  better 
than  his  Gentile  brother,  whom  he  despises.  Having  shown 
that  the  Gentile  does  not  profess  even  to  know  the  true  God, 
he  shows  that  the  Jew  has  not  obtained  the  favor  of  the  God 
whom  he  professes  to  worship.  He  then  shows  that  the 
sign  of  circumcision,  being  an  outward  ordinance,  in  the 
flesh,  cannot  unite  the  heart  to  God.  He  then  declares  that 
all  men,  both  Gentiles  and  Jews,  are  to  be  justified  by  faith 
alone,  without  the  deeds  of  the  law.  The  grace  by  which 
men  are  regenerated  and  saved,  is  the  free  gift  of  God ;  is  not 
obtained  by  works,  or  merited  by  human  actions.  Then  the 
apostle  asks  :  '  What  shall  we  say  then  ?  Shall  we  continue 
in  sin,  that  grace  may  abound  ?'  He  replies  :  ^  God  forbid. 
How  shall  we  that  are  dead  to  sin,  live  any  longer  therein  V 
Here  we  have  the  logical  proposition,  of  which  the  following 
verses  are  the  arguments  in  proof.  The  proposition  is  :  We 
who  have  been  regenerated  by  the  free  gift  of  God's  grace, 
ought  no  longer  to  live  in  sin,  because  we  are  dead  to  sin. 
'  Know  ye  not,  that  so  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into 
Jesus  Christ,  were  baptized  into  his  death  V  Now,  what 
does  the  apostle  mean  by  being  baptized  info  Jesus  Christ  ? 
Does  he  mean  that  we  are  baptized  into  Christ,  and  made 
free  from  sin  by  water  baptism  ?  If  so,  the  text  proves  the 
doctrine  of  baptismal  regeneration.  We  are  not  dead  to  sin 
until  we  are  baptized  ;  we  are  dead  to  sin  after  we  are  bap- 
tized :  therefore  we  die  to  sin,  or  are  made  holy  in  the  act  of 
baptism  !  This  is  certainly  true,  if  the  apostle  alludes  only 
to  water  baptism  \  indeed,  it  is  impossible  for  any  man  to 
be  dead  to  sin  who  has  not  been  baptized.  This  conse- 
quence is  repudiated  by  the  Baptists  generally,  although  a 
large  number  of  them  receive  it.     But  yet  the  language  of 


rnEMAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  275 

the  apostle  is  explicit  :  We  are  dead  to  sin,  because  we 
have  been  baptized  into  Christ. '  This  cannot  be  predicated 
of  water  baptism — the  ordinance  often  folloics  instead  of 
preceding  conversion.  This  order  the  Baptist  system  re- 
quires. It  is  true  Paul  says  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  Grala- 
tians  that  ^  every  man  that  is  circumcised  is  a  debtor  to  do 
the  whole  law/  and  in  this  sense  every  man  that  receives 
water  baptism  is  bound  to  obey  the  whole  gospel.  But  cir- 
cumcision was  not  the  means  of  receiving  the  power  to  obey 
in  the  one  case ;  neither  is  baptism  in  the  other.  When  a 
death  to  sin  is  the  inseparable  result  of  baptism,  or  baptism 
is  the  cause,  instrumeutally,  of  a  holy  life,  we  can  only 
understand  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  a  work  in  the 
heart,  and  not  in  the  flesh,  to  be  designated.  This  is  the 
efficient  means,  and  the  only  efficient  means  by  which  such 
a  result  can  be  attained.  The  apostle  says,  then,  that  we 
who  have  been  baptized  by  the  Holy  Spirit  have  had  our 
hearts  renewed  by  the  Spirit,  have  been  baptized  into  the 
death  of  Christ.  That  is  to  say  :  Christ  having  died /or  us, 
we  by  this  baptism  die  to  the  world,  and  live  for  Christ. 
He  sufi"ered  in  the  body — our  old  man  of  sin  is  likewise 
crucified — ^  our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,'  says  the 
apostle,  Hhat  the  body  of  sin  might  be  destroyed,  that 
henceforth  we  should  not  serve  sin.'  Therefore  we  are 
'  dead  with  Christ,'  and  ^  are  buried  with  him  by  baptism 
into  death.'  Our  sinful  nature  dies  and  is  buried  with 
Christ  the  very  moment  the  Spirit's  baptism  brings  us  into 
the  light  and  liberty  of  the  children  of  God.  To  say  that 
we  are  buried  with  Christ  in  water  baptism  is  to  teach  bap- 
tismal regeneration ;  there  is  no  escape  from  it.  To  say  that 
we  must  be  immersed  in  order  to  express  this  burial,  may 
give  us  some  idea  of  Baptist  poetry,  but  nothing  of  the 
apostle's  meaning.  He  intends  to  show  that  death  to  sin  is 
not  consistent  with  a  life  in  sin.     To  do  this  he  shows  that 


276  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

we  have  as  certainly  been  buried  witli  Christ,  as  we  have 
been  baptized  into  him.  Our  baptism  was  the  means  of  our 
death,  for  it  is  by  baptism  that  we  are  buried.  Inasmuch, 
then,  as  we  have  died  to  sin,  and  have  had  the  old  man,  our 
sinful  nature,  buried,  planted,  and  crucified  with  Christ,  we 
ought  to  '  reckon  ourselves  dead  indeed  unto  sin,  but  alive 
unto  Grod  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord/  that  we  may 
^have  our  fruit  unto  holiness,  and  the  end  everlasting  life.' 
Now  is  water  baptism  a  type  of  our  burial  ?  So  the  Bap- 
tists say.  Certainly  it  cannot  be  the  burial  itself,  unless  re- 
generation takes  place  only  in  baptism.  If  it  is  the  ti/pe 
of  our  burial,  it  must  resemble  the  action  by  which  we  are 
really  buried.  If  that  action  is  the  Spirit's  baptism,  then 
water  baptism  to  represent  it  must  be  performed  hj pouring, 
for  this  is  the  mode  and  the  only  mode  of  spiritual  baptism. 
Our  Baptist  friends  quote  this  text  frequently,  but  still  they 
do  not  seem  to  understand  it.  They  make  the  apostle 
teach  regeneration  in  baptism,  and  at  the  same  time  they 
repudiate  it.  They  harp  upon  being  '■  buried  with  Christ  in 
baptism,'  but  they  do  not  give  a  satisfactory  explanation  of 
their  meaning.  What  do  they  bury  with  Christ,  when  they 
immerse  a  man  ?  His  spirit?  Then  the  Baptist  preacher 
regenerates  the  soul  instead  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  Do  they 
bury  the  man's  hodi/  ?  Then  the  burial  of  the  apostle  and 
theirs  are  two  things — liis  is  spiritual,  theirs  is  physical. 

''  You  will  see  then,  Theophilus,  that  Paul  is  speaking  of 
a  spiritual  work.  He  is  exhorting  the  Romans  to  holiness 
of  life,  not  by  reminding  them  of  their  baptismal  vows,  but 
by  unfolding  more  distinctly  to  their  understandings  the 
nature  of  the  work  wrought  in  their  hearts.  He  shows  them 
that  the  grace  which  is  able  to  destroy  the  old  man  of  sin,  is 
able  to  keep  alive  the  new  man  created  unto  good  works  in 
Christ  Jesus.  He  had  fully  informed  them  about  the  means 
of  their  salvation  in  the  two  preceding  chapters ;  in  this  he 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  277 

describes  the  nature  of  that  salvation.  It  is  an  important 
part  of  the  apostle's  argument,  but  when  it  is  wrested  from 
its  connection,  and  brought  in  to  prove  the  mode  of  water 
baptism,  the  beauty  of  the  passage  is  destroyed,  and  sundry 
errors  of  grave  importance  are  the  necessary  results. 

'^  Further,  to  enforce  my  view  of  this  passage,  I  will  briefly 
consider  the  parallel  in  Colossians,  second  chapter.  ^And 
ye  are  complete  in  him,  which  is  the  head  of  all  principality 
and  power.  In  whom  also  ye  are  circumcised  with  the  cir- 
cumcision made  icitlioiit  hands,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh  by  the  circumcision  of  Christ;  buried 
with  him  in  baptism,  wherein,  also,  ye  are  risen  with  him 
through  the  faith  of  the  opeimtion  of  God,  who  hath  raised 
him  from  the  dead.'  Here  the  apostle  speaks  of  a  circum- 
cision made  without  hands — that  is,  a  spiritual  circumcision 
— and  a  burial  in  baptism  wherein  we  rise  ^hy  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God'  The  expressions  indicate  not  a  similarity 
of  two  works,  but  the  absolute  identity  of  the  circumcision 
and  the  baptism.  The  form  of  speech  is  altered,  but  still 
the  same  idea  is  expressed.  The  converting  and  sanctifying 
grace  of  God  is  likened  to  a  circumcision  without  hands, 
which  puts  off  the  sins  of  our  flesh,  and  conforms  us  to  the 
image  of  Christ ;  and  also  to  a  burial  in  baptism,  wherein  we 
rise  by  faith  in  the  operation  of  God's  love.  The  apostle  no 
more  refers  to  the  water  baptism  of  the  Colossians,  than  he 
does  to  their  circumcision  in  the  flesh.  There  is  a  literal 
baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  there  is  a  real  circumcision 
of  the  heart.  But  the  mode  of  water  baptism  is  no  more  to 
be  inferred  from  the  word  '■  buried'  than  the  mode  of  circum- 
cision of  the  heart.  The  apostle  was  not  illustrating  his 
subject  by  referring  to  any  mode  whatever.  The  same 
Divine  operation  had  circumcised  the  hearts  of  the  Colos- 
sians, and  buried  them  in  baptism.  If  immersion  represents 
the  burial,  then  it  represents  the  circumcision  also,  and  a 


378  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

Jew  at  this  day  would  have  his  initiation  into  the  Jewish 
Church  forcibly  brought  to  mind  whilst  seeing  a  Baptist 
preacher  iminersinff  a  subject  in  water  !  It  is  a  '  speaking 
ordinance'  indeed,  if  it  unites  in  one  representation  oppo- 
site actions. 

^^But  how  does  immersion  represent  a  burial?  In  what 
particulars  is  the  figure  appropriately  applied  to  immersion? 
We  only  bury  the  dead,  or  those  whom  we  believe  to  be  so — 
the  Baptists  will  bury  none  but  the  living,  both  in  body  and 
spirit :  there  can  be  no  agreement,  then,  in  the  state  of  the 
person  buried,  and  that  of  the  one  immersed.  We  excavate 
the  ground,  prepare  a  grave,  let  the  dead  body  down,  and 
throw  the  earth  upon  the  coffin  :  the  Baptist  burial  is  a  dip- 
ping of  a  living  person  into  water,  into  the  '  yielding  wave,' 
and  the  man  is  raised  up,  not  '  by  faith  of  the  operation  of 
God,'  but  by  the  strength  of  the  preacher's  arm  !  There  is  no 
likeness  between  the  manner  of  a  burial,  and  that  of  immer- 
sion in  water.  The  covering  of  the  person  from  the  view  of 
the  spectators  is  the  only  possible  ground  of  analogy.  Yet  the 
corpse  is  alicays  removed  from  sight  before  burial,  being  covered 
up  in  the  coffin.  The  covering  up  of  the  body  in  water  is  a 
momentary  action,  whilst  the  other  is  permanent.  The  earth 
is  never  allowed  to  touch  either  the  body  or  the  garments  of 
the  dead,  yet  the  water  comes  in  direct  contact  with  the  body 
in  immersion.  The  coffin  containing  the  body  is  lowered  into 
the  grave,  but  the  living  body  is  forced  into  the  water  by  the 
preacher's  hands.  Surely  there  is  no  agreement  in  these 
things.  Nothing  but  an  extravagant  fancy  can  see  any  an- 
alogy between  the  burial  of  our  dead,  and  immersion  in 
water. 

'^  The  truth  is,  the  apostle  does  not  refer  to  the  manner  of 
burying  the  dead  either  among  the  Jews,  Romans,  or  Greeks. 
He  simply  speaks  of  that  operation  of  God's  grace  whereby 
the  body  of  sin  is  destroyed,  which  is  often  called,  and  ap- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  279 

propriatelj  called,  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  To 
endeavor  to  represent  this  grace  in  the  mode  of  its  operation, 
is  to  act  without  a  warrant  from  the  apostle,  or  a  just  ground 
of  analogy  in  the  texts  quoted.  We  have  already  seen  the 
Spirit's  operations  represented  by  a  flowing  out  or  pouring — 
thus  far  we  have  Divine  testimony.  We  are  authorized  to 
represent  them  thus  by  the  explicit  language  of  Scripture. 
But  when  we  seek  to  determine  another  mode  founded  upon 
the  word  '  burial,'  we  are  not  only  driven  to  far-fetched  and 
loose  comparisons,  but  we  are  absolutely  contradicting  the 
evidence  of  God's  word. 

^'  I  shall  only  notice  now  one  more  allusion  to  baptism  in 
the  Epistles,  as  several  expressions,  such  as,  '  baptism  doth 
now  save  us,'  ^the  laver  of  regeneration,'  Uhe  washing 
with  water,'  etc.,  will  be  examined  on  a  subsequent  evening. 
In  the  first  letter  to  the  Corinthians,  tenth  chapter,  Paul 
says  :  '  Moreover,  brethren,  I  would  not  that  ye  should  be 
ignorant,  how  that  all  our  fathers  were  under  the  cloud,  and 
all  passed  through  the  sea;  and  were  all  baptized  unto  Mo- 
ses in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  ]  and  did  all  eat  the  same 
spiritual  meat,  and  did  all  drink  the  same  spiritual  drink ; 
for  they  drank  of  that  spiritual  Kock  that  followed  them ;  and 
that  Rock  was  Christ.'  This  passage  evidently  refers  to  the 
crossing  of  the  Red  Sea.  Paul  says  the  children  of  Israel 
were  baptized  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea  -,  they 
were  under  the  cloud,  and  passed  through  the  sea.  Our  Bap- 
tist friends  endeavor  to  make  a  dry  dip  out  of  this  baptism. 
They  affirm  that  the  water  being  above  and  around  the  peo- 
ple, they  were  covered  up  by  it,  and  therefore  dipped  in  it, 
without  becoming  wet.  By  the  same  process  a  man  is  dipped 
in  water  every  time  it  rains,  even  though  he  may  be  in  a 
house ;  for  the  rain  is  above  him,  around  him,  and  beneath 
him      A  dry  baptism  with  water,  is  one  of  the  beautiful 


280  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

creations  of  Baptist  fancy.  To  charge  the  apostle  with  such 
trifling,  is  to  turn  sacred  writ  into  fables  at  once. 

"  The  Israelites  passed  under  the  cloud,  and  the  fine  drops 
of  mist  fell  upon  them  from  it;  they  passed  through  the  sea, 
and  the  spray  from  either  side  of  their  path  fell  on  them — 
this  is  called  a  haptism  unto  Moses,  because  through  faith  in 
their  leader,  as  the  appointed  instrument  in  the  hand  of 
God,  they  were  delivered  from  their  Egyptian  enemies. 
This  is  the  plain  explanation  of  Paul's  language.  He  pro- 
duces the  example  of  the  baptized  Israelites  to  show  the 
Corinthians  that  a  mere  formal  recognition  of  Christian  obli- 
gations does  not  secure  the  favor  of  Grod,  as  many  of  the 
Jews  offended  Grod,  eveif  after  as  well  as  before  their  bap- 
tism. Christ,  the  spiritual  Kock  of  which  they  drank,  fol- 
lowed them,  and  inasmuch  as  they,  while  blessed  with  singu- 
lar privileges,  murmured  and  rejected  God,  so  we,  under  a 
dispensation  of  greater  blessings,  need  not  expect  God  to  be 
pleased  with  us  unless  we  obey  his  commandments.  This  is 
the  evident  meaning  of  the  text. 

'^  I  shall  briefly  recapitulate  the  points  already  examined, 
and  then  close  the  argument  on  the  baptisms  mentioned  in 
the  Scriptures.  John  the  Baptist,  being  the  appointed  her- 
ald of  Christ,  formally  declared  him  to  be  the  Messiah,  by 
anointing  him  with  water,  in  the  presence  of  the  assembled 
multitude.  Christ  promised  to  bestow  upon  his  disciples 
the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  had  been  represented 
by  the  water  baptism  of  John.  This  baptism  of  the  Spirit 
was  prophesied  of  by  Joel,  and  declared  by  Peter  to  be,  a 
j)ourin(j  out  of  the  Spirit.  Water,  the  type  of  the  spiritual 
cleansing,  was  administered  to  the  Pentecostal  converts,  as 
a  sign,  seal,  and  pledge  of  God's  redeeming  grace  and  for- 
giving love.  The  water  baptism  was  followed  by  the  Spirit's 
baptism — the  sign  by  the  thing  signified — the  pouring  out 
of  water,  by  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  upon  the  penitent 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  281 

Jews.  Baptism  under  the  nciv  covenant,  has  taken  the  place 
of  circumcision  under  the  old ;  in  the  first,  the  distinction 
of  subjects  was  abolished,  together  with  the  requirement  to 
embrace  a  particular  system  of  national  government.  The 
subjects  of  the  new  covenant  are  bound  to  obey  the  gospel 
law,  as  the  subjects  of  the  old  were  to  obey  the  Mosaic  law. 

''  The  Samaritans,  in  the  same  manner  as  the  Jews  at  Je- 
rusalem, received  first  the  type,  water  baptism,  then  the 
Spirit's  baptism.  The  mode  was  the  same  used  on  the  day 
of  Pentecost.  The  Ethiopian  eunuch  was  baptized  in  the  ■ 
desert  by  Philip,  under  circumstances  precluding  the  idea 
of  immersion.  As  he  had  belonged  to  the  old  covenant, 
being  a  proselyte,  he  received  the  sign  first,  and  the  thing 
signified  afterward.  His  meeting  with  water  was  not  pre- 
arranged, but  accidental,  and  the  text  by  no  means  conveys 
the  idea  of  a  deviation  in  this  case  from  the  rule  of  apostolic 
baptism.  Cornelius,  a  Grentile,  received  the  baptism  of  the 
Spirit  first,  and  water  baptism  afterward.  Lydia  and  her 
household  were  baptized  on  the  Sabbath,  by  the  river's  side, 
in  the  place  '  where  prayer  was  wont  to  be  made.'  The 
jailer  was  baptized  In  the  jail,  at  night,  precisely  as  the 
others  had  been,  by  receiving  the  sign  of  the  grace  which 
he  sought. 

^^  In  all  these  cases  we  have  no  mention  made  of  a  search 
after  proper  places  to  .baptize.  The  Pentecostal  converts  did 
not  go  either  to  Jordan  or  to  Siloam ;  the  Samaritans  did  not 
go  to  a  river,  a  pool,  or  a  '  tank  j'  the  Ethiopian  went  to  the 
water,  because  he  was  travelling,  and  the  same  thing  would 
be  done  by  any  Pedobaptist  minister  to-day,  under  the  same 
circumstances;  Cornelius  was  baptized  at  home;  Lydia  in 
the  place  of  prayer,  and  the  jailer  in  the  dungeon.  It  is 
absolutely  beyond  belief  that  these  baptisms  could  have  been 
immersions,  without  one  word  of  proof  in  the  sacred  narra- 
tive. 


282  THEOPHILUS    WALTON. 

^^  The  consistency  of  revelation  is  vindicated  by  this  view. 
The  cleansing  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which  is  signified 
by  the  first  sacrament  in  the  Christian  Church,  is.  the  only 
means  by  which  our  hearts  are  prepared  for  the  worship  of 
God  on  earth,  or  fitted  for  companionship  with  the  saved  in 
heaven.  This  spiritual  cleansing  is  beautifully  pictured 
before  us  in  the  pouring  out  of  water  upon  the  head  of  the 
subject,  thus  initiating  him  into  the  new  covenant  which 
has  been  perfected  in  the  blood  of  Christ.  The  seal  of 
God's  covenant,  thus  attached  to  him,  becomes  a  pledge  of 
God's  grace,  without  which  all  ordinances  are  shadows,  all 
human  ministrations  are  but  as  sounding  brass  and  tinkling 
cymbals.  By  this  baptism  of  the  Spirit  the  body  of  sin  is 
buried  with  Christ,  our  atoning  Saviour,  who  purchased  our 
freedom  from  sin  by  his  sacrifice  upon  the  cross ;  and  as  he  has 
been  raised  up  from  the  dead,  so  we  have  been  born  again, 
and  live  a  new  life  in  obedience  to  his  commandments,  look- 
ing for  the  fulness  of  the  blessing  of  the  glorious  gospel  of 
the  Son  of  God ;  resting  in  hope,  awaiting  the  redemption 
of  our  body,  and  our  final  salvation  in  the  land  of  everlast- 
ing peace  and  joy.  Let  us  beware  that  we  neglect  not  the 
substance  in  our  zeal  for  the  shadow ;  that  we  presume  not 
upon  the  grace  of  our  God,  erecting  barriers  against  those 
whom  he  has  blessed,  pronouncing  our  anathemas  against 
the  chosen  of  the  Lord  of  hosts. 

^'  We  will  meet  again  to-morrow  evening.'* 

The  audience  were  then  dismissed. 


^hiU  §v(m\Q. 


HISTOKY   OF   THE    ORDINANCE— ITS   EAELY 
CORRUPTIONS. 


VALUE   OF   THE   FATHERS'   TESTIMONY. 


ORIGIN   OF   BAPTIST  IMMERSION. 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         285 


SIXTH    EYENING. 


At  an  early  hour  on  Thursday  evening  the  church  was 
filled  to  overflowing.  Mr.  Battle  and  Mr.  Ellis  were  both 
present,  and  a  number  of  Baptist  members  occupied  the 
front  seats.  Their  ministers  were  furnished  with  pencil  and 
paper,  ready  to  take  notes  for  future  use.  Mr.  Mason  occu- 
pied his  usual  place  within  the  altar  and  in  front  of  the  pul- 
pit. 

'^  We  are  called  upon  this  evening,"  said  Mr.  Mason,  ^^to 
review  a  sad  feature  in  the  history  of  the  human  race.  No 
sooner  does  the  merciful  Grod  reveal  himself  to  the  children 
of  men,  than  they  introduce  into  his  worship  the  objects  of 
carnal  gratification,  reducing  the  symbols  of  religion  to  the 
substance  of  grace — rejecting  the  immediate  influence  of  the 
Holy  One  of  Israel,  and  binding  to  the  ceremonies  of  the 
Church  the  grace  which  God  alone  can  bestow. 

"The  Jew,  listening  to  the  thunder,  and  beholding  the 
vivid  glare  of  the  lightnings  upon  Mount  Sinai,  grows 
weary  with  the  display  of  the  Divine  power,  and  seeks  at  the 
hands  of  his  priest  a  god  of  gold,  that  he  may  behold  the 
object  of  his  adoration.  The  types  which  strike  his  senses, 
and  are  designed  to  lead  him  to  the  possession  of  the  substance 
which  is  adumbrated,  are  converted  by  his  gross  sensualism 
into  the  end  of  his  worship,  and  the  sum  of  his  religious 
obligations.     He  sees  not  the  blood  of  the  Lamb  of  Calvary, 


286  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

when  he  offers  the  sacrificial  beast;  he  rests  in  the  perform- 
ance of  the  required  ceremony,  and  looks  upon  the  blood  of 
bulls  and  of  goats  as  the  essential  instrument  of  intercession 
with  God  in  his  behalf.  The  soul,  the  living  reality  of  his 
religion,  is  neglected  and  forgotten.  He  pays  the  tithes  of 
mint,  of  anise,  and  cummin,  but  neglects  the  weightier 
matters  of  the  law.  He  changes  the  predictions  of  his  Mes- 
siah into  *prophccies  of  temporal  dominion  and  political 
advancement.  He  dreams  of  superior  sanctity  and  holiness, 
because  he  has  been  zealous  for  the  rites  and  ordinances  of 
his  law,  whilst  his  heart  is  a  receptacle  of  impure  thoughts, 
and  the  fount  of  pernicious  desires.  He  will  not  defile  him- 
self by  the  touch  of  the  common  people,  yet  he  will  grow 
rich  by  grinding  the  faces  of  the  poor.  He  will  build  the 
sepulchres  of  the  prophets,  and  murder  every  new  messen- 
ger of  the  Lord  of  hosts.  He  will  reject  the  evidences  of 
his  Messiah's  advent,  although  they  bring  all  possible  con- 
viction, in  miracles  and  supernatural  visitations,  because  his 
own  preconceived  views  of  his  kingdom  have  wrought  out 
the  grandeur  of  an  earthly  monarch  as  the  livery  of  the 
Anointed  One.  He  needs  no  Saviour  whilst  there  is  a 
priest  in  the  temple,  and  purple  blood  flowing  upon  the 
altar.  This  is  the  Jew ;  the  gross,  sensual,  depraved  Jew. 
He  is  but  one  of  a  thousand;  the  progenitor  of  myriads, 
who  are,  unhappily,  to-day  clinging  about  the  wheels  of 
Zion,  and  retarding  the  progress  of  the  gospel.  They  claim 
to  be  the  children  of  Abraham  ;  yet  they  have  not  Abra- 
ham's faith.  They  avow  themselves  to  be  the  peculiar,  the 
onl^  people  of  God,  the  joint-heirs  with  Christ;  yet  they 
neither  have  the  love  of  God  in  their  hearts,  nor  the 
humility  of  Christ  in  their  lives.  These  are  the  wells  with- 
out water;  the  dry  springs  in  the  desert,  which  allure  only 
to  deceive ;  they  are  clouds  without  moisture,  driven  by  the 
winds  of  passion,  promising  refreshing  showers,  and  yielding 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  287 

none  ;  they  are  wandering  stars,  that  keep  no  regular  orbits, 
but  wander  about  their  own  self-appointed  centres.  They 
engraft  the  sensualism  of  the  Jew  and  the  pride  of  the 
Pharisee  upon  the  gospel  of  Christ.  They  make  a  brother 
an  enemy  for  a  word — a  rebel  because  he  does  not  receive 
their  views  of  Christian  obligation  and  duty.  They  cast 
the  children  of  the  fold  to  the  mercies  of  the  wolf,  and 
cry  '■  The  Temple  of  the  Lord  are  we  !  the  Temple  of  the 
Lord  are  we  I'  '  We  are  the  Church,  and  there  is  none  beside 
us ;  we  have  the  sacraments  and  the  blessings  of  the  king- 
dom ;  they  that  follow  not  us  are  Anathema,  Maranatha !' 

^'Alas  !  such  is  the  case,  even  in  the  Christian  Church. 
This  spirit  began  to  manifest  itself  very  early  in  the  days  of 
the  apostles.  A  contention  arose  about  circumcision  before 
tv/enty  years  had  passed  away  from  the  death  of  Christ. 
^Except  ye  be  circumcised  after  the  manner  of  Moses,  ye 
cannot  be  saved.'  Thus  taught  certain  men  of  Judea  at 
Antioch.  Paul  and  Barnabas  must  needs  go  up  to  Jerusa- 
lem to  have  the  question  settled.  The  elders  and  the 
apostles  consult  about  it,  and  the  conclusion  is,  that  the 
yoke  of  circumcision  is  not  to  be  placed  upon  the  people. 
It  was  a  step  backward,  obligating  them  to  do  without 
grace  that  which  no  man  had  done.  It  was  the  leaven  of 
the  Pharisees  in  the  Christian  lump,  making  the  salvation 
of  the  people  dependent  upon  an  outward  ordinance.  But 
the  apostles  determined  that  we  are  saved  by  grace,  not  by 
ordinances.  A  few  years  pass  by,  and  grievous  disturb- 
ances arise  at  Corinth.  One  party  asserts  :  We  are  of  Paul, 
the  learned  apostle.  Another  says  :  ^Ye  are  of  the  eloquent 
Apollos.  Another  says :  We  are  of  Cephas,  the  corner- 
stone, the  keeper  of  the  keys.  And  still  another  says  :  But 
'we  are  of  Christ.  They  are  rent  by  divisions.  The  spirit 
of  heathen  rivalry  creeps  in,  and  they  convert  the  Church 
into  the  schools  of  the  academists  and  the  porches  of  the 


288  THEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

philosopliers.  While  they  are  engaging  in  these  boasts  of 
superiority,  they  are  tolerating  in  their  midst  the  most  hein- 
ous crimes.  Thus  does  Grod  justly  abandon  to  its  folly  the 
pride  of  the  human  heart. 

'^  Is  it  any  wonder,  then,  that  the  sacraments  of  Christ- 
ianity should  be  corrupted  ?  Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  f^/pe 
should  be  substituted  for  the  grace  which  is  signified  ? 
Scarcely  does  the  last  of  the  apostles  wander  in  exile  on  the 
island  of  Patmos,  before  the  work  of  sacramental  corruption 
begins.  Sinful  human  nature  is  elevated  by  becoming  the 
instrument  of  regeneration,  on  the  one  hand,  and  by  receiv- 
ing it  in  a  visible  form  on  the  other.  A  religion  whose 
essence  can  be  touched  with  the  hands,  and  seen  with  the 
eyes,  accords  with  the  conceptions  of  fallen  man.  Hence 
professedly  Christian  teachers,  in  expounding  the  word  of 
God,  blend  the  sign  and  the  grace  in  one.  They  read  that 
when  Peter's  feet  were  washed  by  the  Saviour,  Peter 
exclaimed  :  '  Lord,  not  my  feet  only^  but  also  my  hands  and 
my  head.'  They  find  in  this  a  necessity  for  washing  the 
whole  body  of  the  convert.  They  read  in  Christ's  conver- 
sation with  Nicodemus  that  men  must  be  born  of  water,  and 
of  the  Spirit.  They  find  here  another  birth  of  the  body,  in 
the  water,  and  they  connect  it  with  the  spiritual  birth;  and 
as  the  spirit  and  body,  naturally,  come  into  the  world  at  the 
same  moment,  so  the  birth  of  water  is  the  birth  of  the 
spirit.  They  hear  Paul  speak  of  being  cleansed  with  the 
washing  of  water  by  the  word.  They  hear  Peter  say,  we 
are  ?.avcd  by  baptism.  These  proofs  are  enough  for  them. 
The  whole  body  must  be  washed — must  be  born  of  water — 
and  the  spirit  is  thus  saved  by  baptism.  They  see  not  that 
these  expressions  are  symbolical ;  they  will  have  them  to  be 
literal;  they  must  mean  baptismal  regeneration,  because 
it  is  an  easy  doctrine,  and  pleases  the  sinful  heart. 

"Barnabas,  the  fellow-laborer  of  Paul,  is  said  to  be  the 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  289 

author  of  a  General  Epistle.  Those  who  receive  it  say  it  is 
older  than  the  Epistle  of  Jucle^  and  others  suppose  that  it 
was  written  in  the  first  century,  and  composed  for  the 
Ebionite  Christians,  a  sect  who  rejected  the  Divinity  of 
Christ.  Let  us  hear  Barnabas.  ^  Consider/  says  he,  '  how 
he  has  joined  both  the  cross  and  iJie  water  together.  For 
this  he  saith  :  Blessed  are  they  who  put  their  trust  in  the 
cross,  and  descend  into  the  icater,  for  they  shall  have  their 
reward  in  due  time :  then,  saith  he,  I  will  give  it  to  them. 
.  .  .  And  there  was  a  river  running  on  the  right  hand, 
and  beautiful  trees  grew  up  by  it ;  and  he  that  shall  eat  of 
them  shall  live  for  ever.  The  signification  of  which  is  this  : 
that  we  go  down  into  the  water  full  of  sins  and  pollutions, 
but  come  up  again  hrimjing  forth  fruity  having  in  our  hearts 
the  fear  and  hope  which  is  in  Jesus  by  the  Spirit.'  Epistle 
of  Barnabas,  c.  10.  Let  not  the  Baptists  rejoice  at  this 
ancient  authority  for  going  down  into  the  icater,  for  the  fact 
is  significant  that  the  first  intimation  of  such  a  proceeding 
in  ancient  history  was  coupled  with  the  doctrine  of  bap- 
tismal regeneration  :  forgiveness  of  sins  and  convei'sion  in 
luater. 

^^  Ignatius,  who  is  supposed  to  have  written  about  the  end 
of  the  first  or  beginning  of  the  second  century,  in  his 
Epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  speaking  of  Christ,  says  :  '  He  was 
born  and  baptized,  that  through  his  passage  he  might  purify 
loater,  to  the  washing  away  of  sin.'  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians, 
chapter  iv. 

'^  In  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas,  who  is  believed  by  some  to 
have  written  about  the  same  time  as  Ignatius,  we  find  the 
following  words  :  ^I  asked  her.  Lady,  why  is  the  tower  built 
upon  the  water?  She  replied,  I  said  before  to  thee  that 
thou  wert  very  wise,  to  inquire  diligently  concerning  the 
building,  therefore  thou  shalt  find  the  truth.  Hear,  there- 
fore, why  the  tower  is  built  upon  the  water  :  because  your  life 
13 


290  TIIEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

is  and  shall  he  saved  hy  water.  For  it  is  founded  by  the 
word  of  tlie  almiglity  and  lionorable  name,  and  is  supported 
by  the  invisible  power  and  virtue  of  God.'  Hermas,  Yis.  3. 
Again,  this  author  speaks  more  distinctly  to  the  purpose  : 
^  It  was  necessary,  said  he,  for  them  to  ascend  hy  loatcr,  that 
they  might  be  at  rest.  For  they  eould  not  otherwise  enter 
into  the  kingdom  of  God,  but  by  laying  aside  the  mortality 
of  their  former  life,  (that  is,  hy  heing  haptized.)  They, 
therefore,  being  dead,  were  nevertheless  sealed  with  the  seal 
of  the  Son  of  God,  and  so  entered  into  the  kingdom  of  God. 
Now  that  seal  is  the  water  of  baptism,  into  wJiich  men  go 
down  under  the  obligation  unto  death,  but  come  up  appointed 
unto  life/   Similitudes  of  Hernias,  9,  c.  16. 

^^It  is  a  little  remarkable,  Theophilus,  that  this  last 
author  not  only  makes  baptism  the  means  of  saving  the 
living,  but  he  declares  that  the  dead  must  be  baptized  before 
they  can  be  saved !  One  quotation  more  I  will  give  you. 
Justin  Martyr,  who  lived  about  A.  D.  140,  speaking  of  the 
method  of  baptizing,  says :  '  Then  we  bring  them  to  some 
place  where  there  is  water,  and  they  are  regenerated  by  the 
same  way  of  regeneration  by  which  we  are  regenerated,  for 
they  are  washed  icith  water  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father 
and  Lord  of  all  things,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and 
of  the  Holy  Spirit.' 

^^  I  have  quoted  these  passages  to  show  you  at  what  an 
early  period  the  grace  of  God  was  attached  to  baptism,  and 
the  ordinance  made  the  means  of  conversion.  It  does  not 
matter  whether  these  letters  were  written  by  the  men  to 
whom  they  were  ascribed,  or  not.  They  are  certainly  not 
i^ispircd  writings — that  we  know.  But  the  evidence  is  very 
clear  that  they  were  all  extant  about  the  commencement  of 
the  third  century :  that  is,  the  letters  of  Barnabas  and 
Ignatius,  and  the  Shepherd  of  Hermas. 

'^  It  is  evident  that  they  went  down  into  the  water,  and 


THE    MAJESTY    OE    TRUTH  291 

immersed  tlieir  candidates.  But  do  not  misunderstand  that 
expression.  It  was  not  Baptist  immersion^  but  trine  immer- 
sion :  that  is,  they  were  dipped  three  times,  once  in  the  name 
of  the  Father,  once  in  the  name  of  the  Son,  and  once  in  the 
name  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  If  the  baptism  of  the  first  cen- 
turies consisted  of  three  dips,  our  Baptist  friends  have 
certainly  lost  tico-thirds  of  the  ordinance,  for  they  have  but 
one  dip.  Let  me  call  attention  to  the  dishonesty  of  the 
author  of  '  Theodosia  Ernest.^  On  page  166  he  says  :  'The 
first  historians,  and  earliest  writers  on  the  customs  and 
practices  of  the  apostolic  churches,  were  Baptists.  .  .  It 
was  near  three  hundred  years  before  there  were  any  pro- 
fessed Christians  who  were  not  Baptists.  .  .  I  say  the 
Christian  Fathers,  for  the  first  three  centuries,  were  Bap)tists, 
for  they  say  so  themselves.'  The  author  then  gives  the  quo- 
tation from  Justin  Martyr  which  I  have  just  read.  Now 
this  is  the  language  of  a  mere  braggart,  who  knows  nothing 
of  what  he  says,  or  else  he  wilfully  perverts  the  truth.  Do 
Baptists  baptize  infants  ?  Yet  these  same  '  Fathers'  taught 
and  practiced  infant  baptism.  Do  Baptists  believe  that  we 
are  regenerated,  born  anew  of  the  Spirit,  in  the  act  of  bap- 
tism ?  So  these  '  Fathers'  taught.  Do  Baptists  immerse 
their  subjects  three  times  in  water?  So  these  'Fathers' 
practiced.  Do  Baptists  baptize  their  subjects  naked?  These 
'Fathers'  certainly  did.  Do  Baptists  anoint  their  subjects 
with  oil,  make  the  sign  of  the  cross,  exorcise  or  drive  out 
the  devil  ?  So  did  these  Fathers.  And  yet  '  the  Fathers 
for  the  first  three  centuries  were  Baptists  !'  But  this  is  not 
all.  The  author  gives  a  quotation  from  Tertullian,  and 
leaves  out  tico  very  important  words.  He  makes  Tertullian 
say :  '  When  we  are  ready  to  enter  into  the  water,  (and 
even  before,)  we  make  our  protestations  before  the  minister, 
and  in  the  church,  that  we  renounce  the  devil  and  all  his 
pomps  and  vanities  J  afterwards  we  nre  j^lungcd  in  the  water.' 


292  TIIEOPIIILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

Now,  hear  wliat  Tertullian  dors  say,  and  learn  wliat  credit, 
you  are  to  give  to  Baptist  statements.  ^  When  we  come  to 
the  water,  we  do  there,  (and  we  do  the  same  also,  a  little 
before,  in  the  congregation,)  under  the  hand  of  the  pastor, 
make  a  profession  that  we  do  renounce  the  devil,  and  his 
pomp,  and  his  angels.  Then  we  are  three  times  plunged 
into  the  water ;  and  we  answer  some  few  words  more  than 
our  Saviour  in  the  Gospel  has  enjoined.  When  we  are 
taken  out  of  the  water,  we  taste  a  mixture  of  milk  and 
honey.'  De  Corona  Militis,  c.  1.  '  Theodosia'  makes  it  con- 
venient to  leave  out  the  '  three  times,'  because  the  work  was 
pledged  to  make  Tertullian  a  Baptist !  Do  the  Baptists 
taste  the  milk  and  honey  now,  when  they  are  taken  up  out 
of  the  water  ?  But  let  us  hear  a  little  more  about  that  old- 
time  Baptist  Church,  in  the  days  of  Tertullian  :  '■  The  sacra- 
ment of  the  eucharist,'  says  he,  ^  which  our  Lord  celebrated 
at  meal-time,  and  ordered  all  to  take,  we  receive  in  our 
assemblies  before  day,  and  never  hut  from  the  hands  of  the 
pastor  J  Do  modern  Baptists  follow  this  rule  ?  What 
authority  have  they  for  laying  it  aside  ?  Their  deacons  dis- 
tribute the  sacrament :  so  did  not  the  Church  receive  it  of 
which  Tertullian  writes.  But  let  us  hear  more  of  this 
^  Baptist'  Father  :  '  We  count  it  an  unfitting  thing  to  keep 
any  fasts  on  the  Lord's  day^  or  to  hneel  at  our  prayers  on 
that  day.  The  same  liberty  we  take  all  the  time  from 
Easter  to  Pentecost.'  Do  the  Baptists  have  any  conscien- 
tious scruples  about  kneeling  at  prayer  on  the  Lord's  day? 
Do  they  keep  the  feast  of  Easter  ?  But  again,  Tertullian 
says  :  ^  We  are  troubled  at  it,  if  any  of  our  bread  or  wine 
fall  to  the  ground.  At  every  setting  out,  or  entry  on  busi- 
ness, whenever  we  come  in  or  go  out  from  any  place,  when 
we  dress  for  a  journey,  when  we  go  into  a  bath,  when  we  go 
to  meat,  when  the  candles  are  brought  in,  when  we  lie  down, 
or  sit  down,  and  whatever  business  we  have,  ive  make  on  our 


THE  MAJESTY  OP  TRUTH.  293 

foreheads  the  sign  of  the  cross.'  Here  is  a  fine  list  of  cere- 
monies, worthy  of  any  believer  in  the  Pope,  and  yet  we  are 
told  that  Tertullian  was  a  good  Baptist ! 

''In  his  debate  with  Praxeas,  Tertullian  is  even  more 
explicit  than  before  in  regard  to  trine  immersion.  He  says 
our  Saviour  commanded  the  apostles  that  they  should  bap- 
tize unto  the  Father,  and  unto  the  Son,  and  unto  the  Holy 
Spirit ;  '  not  unto  one  person,^  says  he,  'for  ive  are  not 
2}hingcd  ONCE,  hut  THREE  TIMES  ;  once  at  the  naming  of 
each  name.'  And  yet  the  author  of  this  attempt  at  prose- 
lyting the  young,  suppresses  the  truth,  so  as  to  make  it 
appear  that  the  '  Fathers'  practiced  the  '  single  dip'  of  the 
Baptists ! 

''  In  the  Canons  of  the  Holy  Apostles,  as  they  are  called, 
the  single  immersion  is  positively  prohibited.  This  I  will 
show  you  directly.  Another  misrepresentation  follows  on 
the  same  page  in  '  Theodosia.'  I  will  read  the  sentence  : 
'  But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  authorities.  It  is  the  united 
testimony  of  all  the  Fathers  who  speak  of  the  subject  at  all, 
that  baptism  was  in  the  early  ages  performed  only  l>y  immer- 
sion^ except  of  necessity,  in  the  near  prospect  of  death  ;  and 
those  loho,  under  such  circumstances,  received  p)0uring  as  a 
suhstitute,  were  never  said  to  he  baptized,  hut  to  have  hecn 
poured  upon,  as  a  suhstitute  for  hapfism  !'  A  more  positive 
misstatement  cannot  be  found  in  this  buds-et  of  errors. 
Those  who  were  baptized  when  they  were  sick  were  never 
said  to  be  haptized,  but  to  be  poured  upon  ! 

''Now  let  us  see  how  the  record  stands  on  this  point. 
Novatian,  in  the  third  century,  was  '  poured  upon'  in  his  bed 
in  time  of  sickness,  and  after  he  recovered  was  chosen  by 
one  party  Bishop  of  Home.  Cornelius,  his  opponent,  writing 
to  Fabius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  says  :  '  It  was  not  lawful  for 
any  one  that  had  been  haptized  in  his  bed  in  time  of  sick- 
ness, as  he  (Novatian)  had  been,  to  be  admitted  to  any  ofl&ce 


294  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

of  th.e  clergy/  Why  ?  Because  they  regarded  the  man  as 
having  been  forced  to  a  profession  of  Christianity.  The 
Council  of  Neocaesarea,  some  time  after  this  period,  passed  a 
canon,  stating  that  '  He  that  is  baptized  when  he  is  sick, 
ought  not  to  be  made  a  priest,  (for  his  coming  to  the  faith  is 
not  voluntary,  but  from  necessity,)  unless  his  diligence  and 
faith  do  aherward  prove  commendable,  or  the  scarcity  of 
men  fit  for  the  office  do  require  it.'  We  see  then  that 
the  fault  is  not  that  the  man  has  not  been  validly  baptized, 
but  his  i-epentance  is  not  considered  voluntary,  but  com- 
pelled by  the  near  view  of  death.  In  reference  to  this  very 
case,  whether  a  man  baptized  in  bed  when  sick  must  be 
baptized  again  if  he  recovered,  Cyprian  writes  :  '  If  any  one 
think  that  they  obtain  no  benefit,  as  having  only  an 
affusion  of  the  water  of  salvation,  do  not  let  him  mistake  so 
far  as  that  the  parties,  if  they  recover  of  their  sickness, 
should  be  baptized  again.  And  if  they  must  not  be  baptized 
again,  that  have  already  been  sanctified  loith  the  baptism  of 
the  Church,  why  should  they  have  cause  of  scandal  given 
them  concerning  their  religion,  and  the  pardon  of  our 
Lord?'  These  words  were  written  about  A.  D.  260,  and 
completely  overthrow  the  assertion  that  persons  baptized  in 
sickness  were  said  to  be  poured  upon,  instead  of  being 
baptized.  They  loere  baptized  validly,  and  no  one  of  them 
was  baptized  again,  so  far  as  the  writings  of  the  Fathers 
show.     I  might  give  many  other  proofs,  but  it  is  needless. 

"  I  have  shown  you  that  after  the  death  of  the  apostles, 
three  immersions,  milk,  honey,  the  sign  of  the  cross,  and  bap- 
tismal regeneration,  composed  the  ordinance  of  baptism  in 
the  first  three  centuries;  and  also  that  affusion  was  prac- 
ticed in  the  cases  of  the  sick.  I  am  now  to  show  that  im^ 
mersion,  as  practiced  by  the  Baptists,  was  unknown  until 
the  latter  part  of  the  fourth  century,  and  that  it  icas  then 
introduced  by  a  heretical  sect  for  the  purpose  of  opp)Osing  the 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  295 

doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  I  sliall  do  tliis,  not  by  quoting  a 
modern,  but  one  of  the  oldest  ecclesiastical  historians.  Sozo- 
nicn,  a  writer  of  the  fiflli  century,  in  his  Ecclesiastical  His- 
tory, B.  vi.,  c.  26,  says :  'xibout  this  time,  (A.  D.  375,) 
Euuomius,  who  had  succeeded  Eleusius  in  the  bishopric  of 
Cyzicus,  and  who  presided  over  the  Avians,  devised  another 
heresy,  which  some  have  called  by  his  name,' but  which  is 
sometimes  denominated  the  Anomoean  heresy.  Some  assert 
that  Eunomius  was  the  first  who  ventured  to  maintain  tliat 
haptism  ought  to  he  performed  by  immersion,  and  to  corrupt, 
in  this  manner,  the  apostolical  tradition  luliicli  has  been 
handed  down  to  the  j^^'csent  day.  He  introduced,  it  is  said, 
a  mode  of  discipline  contrary  to  that  of  the  Church,  and  en- 
deavored to  disguise  the  innovation  under  the  cloak  of  a 
grave  and  severe  deportment.  He  was  very  eloquent,  and 
delighted  in  disputations  and  conferences.  The  generality 
of  those  who  entertain  his  sentiments  have  the  same  predi- 
lections. [What  a  fuU-Iength  portrait  of  modern  Baptists  !] 
They  do  not  applaud  a  virtuous  course  of  life  and  conduct, 
or  charity  toward  the  needy,  unless  exhibited  b}^  persons  of 
their  own  sect,  so  much  as  skill  in  disputation,  and  the 
power  of  triumphing  in  debates  over  the  arguments  of  an 
opponent.  Persons  possessed  of  these  accomplishments  are 
accounted  religious  and  virtuous.  .  .  .  But  whether  it 
was  Eunomius,  or  any  other  person,  who  first  introduced 
heretical  opinions  concerning  baptism,  it  seems  to  me  that 
such  innovators,  whoever  they  may  have  been,  were  alone  in 
danger,  according  to  their  own  representation,  of  quitting 
this  life  without  having  received  the  rite  of  holy  baptism  : 
for  if,  after  having  received  baptism  after  the  ancient  mode 
of  the  Church,  they  found  it  impossible  to  re-confer  it  on 
themselves,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  introduced  a  prac- 
tice to  which  they  had  not  themselves  submitted,  and  thus 
undertook  to  administer  to  others  what  had  never  been  ad- 


296  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

ministered  to  tliemselves.  [The  very  difficulty  wliicli  was 
settled  by  Roger  Williams  and  Ezekiel  Holliman,  wlien  they 
mutually  immersed  each  other,  without  either  having  the 
right  to  do  so,  on  their  own  principles.]  Thus,  after  having 
laid  down  certain  principles,  according  to  their  own  fancy, 
without  any  data,  they  proceeded  to  bestow  upon  others 
what  they  had  not  themselves  received.  The  absurdity  of 
this  assumption  is  manifest  from  their  own  confession ;  for 
they  admit  that  those  who  have  not  received  the  rite  of  bap- 
tism have  not  the  power  of  administering  it.  Now,  accord- 
ing to  their  opinion,  those  who  have  not  received  the  rite  of 
baptism,  in  conformity  with  their  mode  of  administration, 
are  unhaptized  ;  and  they  confirm  this  opinion  by  their  prac- 
tice, inasmuch  as  they  re-baptize  all  those  who  join  their 
sect,  although  previously  baptized  by  the  Catholic  Church.' 
Such  is  the  testimony  of  one  of  the  oldest  and  most  reliable 
of  Church  historians.  It  is  a  very  important  passage,  as  it 
distinctly  shows  us  that  haptisni  hy  immersion  was  unknown 
in  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  It  is  important 
in  another  respect,  inasmuch  as  it  shows  us  that  the  doctrine 
of  immersion  originated  with  the  enemies  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity,  and  was  used  openly  for  the  purpose  of  exhibit- 
ing their  faith  on  that  subject.  This  is,  indeed,  a  severe 
charge  to  bring  against  Baptist  immersion,  but  I  will  show 
you  presently  that  the  revival  of  Baptist  sentiments  in 
modern  times  was  attended  by  the  same  union  between  im- 
mersion and  Unitarianism — that  the  early  Baptists  denied 
the  Divinity  of  Christ,  as  many  of  them  do  at  the  present 
day.- 

'^I  am  surprised  to  hear  you  say  that,  Mr.  Mason,''  said 
Theophilus;  ''I  have  been  taught  to  believe  the  Baptist 
Church  as  old  as  the  apostles,  handing  down  the  faith  to  us 
throuo^h  the  brave  Waldenses." 

"  History  furnishes  no  proof  of  such  arrogant  assump- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  297 

tious.  The  Waldenses  luere  not  Baptists,  neither  was  there 
a  Baptist  Church  in  existence  for  a  thousand  years  after  the 
days  of  the  apostles.'^ 

'^  But  have  you  not  fixed  the  beginning  of  the  Baptist 
Church  upon  EunomiuS;  in  the  fourth  century?" 

'^jN^o,  not  at  all;  it  certainly  takes  something  more  to 
make  a  Baptist  than  immersion.  On  the  mode  of  baptism 
the  Eunomian  heretics  agreed  with  modern  Baptists,  but 
they  disagreed  as  to  the  subjects  of  baptism.  The  Euno- 
mians  were  Pedobaptists,  as  were  all  orthodox  Christians  in 
those  times — and  I  meauj  by  '  Pedobaptists/  simply  believers 
in  infant  baptism." 

'^I  understand  you  now,  Mr.  Mason.  Eunomius  and  his 
followers  immersed  their  subjects  as  the  Baptists  do,  but 
they  designed  to  show  thereby  that  there  was  but  ojie  person 
in  the  Godhead." 

"  Exactly  so.  And  the  early  Christians  used  trine  immer- 
sion, ordinarily,  to  show  that  there  were  three  persons  in  the 
Godhead.  Whenever  they  baptized  the  sick,  they  poured 
the  water,  or  sprinkled  it,  three  times  upon  the  person  for  the 
same  purpose." 

"  You  have  mentioned  the  Apostolical  Constitutions  as 
condemning  immersion,"  said  Theophilus;  ^^will  you  please 
give  us  some  information  about  the  fi?7ie  when  they  were 
composed  ?  Of  course  they  were  not  the  works  of  the 
apostles  ?" 

"  No,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  but  they  were  written  during 
the  second,  third,  and  fourth  centuries,  compiled  and  attri- 
buted to  the  apostles,  about  the  commencement  of  the  fifth 
century.  The  canon  to  which  I  allude  is  the  fiftieth,  and 
reads  as  follows  : 

"  '  If  any  bishop  or  presbyter  do  not  perform  three  immer- 
sions of  one  initiation,  but  one  immersion  which  is  given 
into  the  death  of  Christ,  let  him  he  deposed ;  for  the  Lord 
1.3* 


298  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

did  not  say,  Bajytize  into  my  Jeath ;  but,  Go  ye  and  make 
disciples  of  all  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Grhost.  Do  ye, 
therefore,  0  bishops,  ha2:)tize  thrice  into  one  Father,  and  Son, 
and  Holy  Ghost,  according  to  the  will  of  Christ  and  our 
constitution  by  the  Spirit.' — Ajj.  Con.,  can.  50. 

^'  So  reads  the  canon.  It  is  very  clear,  then,  that  just  as 
long  as  clij)ping  was  practiced  in  the  early  Church,  it  con- 
sisted of  three  dips,  not  of  one.  Now,  if  this  was  aposto- 
lic baptism,  the  Baptists  are  as  far  wrong  as  we.  But  if  the 
practice  was  a  corruption  of  the  ordinance,  we  must  trace 
that  corruption  to  its  source.  This  we  have  seen  was  the 
idea  of  conversion  in  baptism — the  unscriptural  dogma  of 
the  cleansing  of  the  spirit  in  water.  As  the  ichole  spirit 
was  to  be  cleansed,  the  whole  body  was  to  be  washed.  And 
inasmuch  as  this  could  not  be  done  when  the  body  was 
clothed,  their  practice  was  to  baptize  naked.'^ 
"  Is  that  fact  well  established,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 
^'As  clearly  as  any  other.  Let  me  give  you  the  testimony 
of  a  Baptist  historian ;  certainly  he  will  not  misrepresent  it. 
Mr.  Eobinson,  a  Baptist  writer,  says  :  '  The  primitive  Chris- 
tians baptized  naked.  Nothing  is  easier  than  to  give  proof 
of  this  by  quotations  from  the  authentic  writings  of  the  men 
who  administered  baptism,  and  who  certainly  knew  in  what 
way  they  themselves  performed  it.  There  is  no  ancient  his- 
torical fact  better  authenticated  than  this.  The  evidence 
doth  not  go  on  the  meaning  of  the  single  word  naked,  for 
then  a  reader  might  suspect  allegory,  but  on  many  facts 
reported,  and  many  reasons  assigned  for  the  practice.' — Res., 
c.  15.  I  will  not  recite  the  facts  which  he  enumerates,  but 
if  you  desire  to  see  them,  I  will  refer  you  to  the  Ecclesiastical 
Histories  of  Socrates  and  Sozomen.  The  ancients  assigned 
various  reasons  for  this  practice,  affirming  that  it  was  the 
manner  of  the  apostolic  baptism.     It  was,  they  said,  the 


► 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  299 

putting  off  the  old  man,  and  the  putting  on  the  new,  Christ 
Jesus. 

''  Now,  when  we  consider  these  facts,  that  baptized  persons 
were  naked,  immersed  three  times,  anointed  with  oil,  had 
milk  and  honey  given  them  to  eat,  and  were  universally  con- 
sidered to  be  ho7-)i  again  in  the  water,  do  you  not  see  at  a 
glance  that  all  these  corruptions  of  the  ordinance — the  im- 
mersions, the  disrobing  of  the  body,  the  anointing  with  oil, 
the  sanctifying  of  the  water — all  originated  out  of  the  idea 
of  baptismal  regeneration  V 

''  I  think  it  is  proved  to  a  demonstration,''  replied  Theo- 
philus.  ^'And  I  am  compelled  to  express  my  astonishment 
that  Baptists  cling  to  a  third  of  the  mode,  and  reject  all  the 
others  !  This  ancient  '  baptism'  is  certainly  shallow  proof 
for  any  Christian  denomination." 

''And  yet,  Theophilus,  our  immersionist  friends  cling  to 
this  sandy  foundation,  and  while  they  conceal  the  corrup- 
tions of  the  ordinance,  claim  the  '  Fathers'  as  simon-pure 
Baptists.  I  say  they  conceal  these  facts  from  their  readers, 
for  every  one  of  their  books  claims  the  immersions  of  the 
ancients  as  proofs  of  their  own  correctness.  This  they  do 
whilst  pretending  to  receive  the  Bible  as  the  rule  of  their 
faith  and  practice  ! 

"  The  fact  is,  that  a  spurious  Christianity  obtained,  before 
the  commencement  of  the  second  century,  in  the  Church. 
Baptism  was  exalted  into  regeneration,  and  the  bread  and 
wine  of  the  Lord's  Supper  into  the  real  hody  and  hlood  of 
Christ.  Justin  Martyr  was  a  Catholic,  essentially  a  Roman 
Catholic ;  so  were  the  '  Fathers'  of  the  subsequent  ages, 
almost  without  exception,  for  the  peculiarities  of  Romanism 
sprang  up  in  the  very  days  of  the  apostles.  This  I  am 
prepared  to  prove,  if  it  is  denied.  I  know  that  Protestant 
historians,  in  controverting  the  errors  of  the  Romanists, 
endeavor  to  give  a  later  date  to  them ;  but  the  works  of  these 


800  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

^  Fathers'  are  extant :  they  answer  for  themselves.  From 
the  time  of  Justin  Martyr,  and  even  before,  to  the  time  of 
Augustin,  in  the  fifth  century,  the  whole  list  of  Fathers  is 
but  a  succession  of  Romanizing  teachers.  That  which  we 
call  Roman  CathoUcism  existed  in  substance  long  before  the 
Pope  pretended  to  occupy  St.  Peter's  chair,  or  claimed  pos- 
session of  the  keys  of  heaven  and  hell.  The  basis  of  the 
'  Great  Italian  Apostasy'  was  the  corruption  of  the  ordi- 
nances of  baptism  and  the  Lord's  Supper.  All  other  evils 
flowed  from  these,  as  I  would  prove  to  you  if  I  had  time. 

^'  It  is  enough  for  our  present  purpose,  then,  that  we  have 
arrived  at  the  root  of  the  matter.  We  find  water,  the  sign 
of  the  Spirit's  baptism,  joined  to  and  inseparably  mingled 
with  the  operations  of  the  Spirit  of  Grod.  The  7ieio  hirth 
then  becomes  a  hodihj  birth,  as  well  as  a  spiritual  one.  The 
body  is  then  disrobed  and  covered  three  times  in  water,  once 
in  the  name  of  each  person  of  the  Trinity,  to  exhibit  that 
doctrine.  'And  then  follow  the  oil,  honey,  milk,  and  various 
other  superstitious  additions.  Let. us  cut  off  these  accumu- 
lations upon  the  ordinance  of  Christ,  and  we  shall  have  little 
left.  The  Spirit's  baptism  is  the  thing  to  be  exhibited — it 
is  said  to  be  a  baptism  by  pouring.  The  Baptists  strike  off 
two  of  the  immersions  \  we  will  finish  the  work,  strike  off 
tlie  other,  and  return  to  the  simplicity  of  the  emblem  and 
the  practice  of  the  apostles — pouring  water  upon  the  head 
of  the  person  to  be  baptized,  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  the 
Son,  and  the  Holy  Grhost.'^ 

''  I  think  you  have  made  out  your  case,  Mr.  Mason,  beyond 
doubt.  I  am  firmly  convinced  that  jjouring  is  the  uncor- 
rupted,  scriptural  mode  of  baptism.  Upon  that  subject  no 
further  argument  is  required.  I  see  now  the  danger  to 
which  I  have  been  exposed  in  following  Baptist  writers. 
You  have  promised,  however,  to  expose  a  quotation  made  in 
*  Theodosia'  from  Dr.  Wall.     I  have  never  seen  his  work. 


L 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  301 

and  would  like  for  you  to  sliow  the  dishonesty  of  this  Bap- 
tist production.'' 

'^Very  well,  Theophilus/'  replied  Mr.  Mason,  'Mo  you 
take  '  Theodosia  Ernest/  and  I  will  use  Dr.  Wall's  History 
of  Infant  Baptism.  By  the  way,  if  I  remember  rightly,  this 
'  Theodosia'  makes  a  ridiculous  blunder  about  the  iiame  of 
Dr.  Wall's  book.  Look  at  page  178,  and  see  what  name 
the  quotation  is  credited  to." 

"  The  'History  of  John  the  Baptist  !'  " 

''  So  I  thought !  Here  is  verily  a  learned  writer  in  the 
nineteenth  century  !  Dr.  Wall's  'Eistori/  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist' is  an  apocryphal  book,  which  no  mortal  ever  laid  his 
eyes  on,  save  and  except  the  wonderful  genius  who  spent  his 
days  in  perverting  a  simple  female  from  the  communion  of 
her  fathers.  Such  absurd  impostures  were  never  yet  called 
to  the  aid  of  a  good  cause.  But  let  us  proceed.  AYhere  is 
the  passage  ?" 

''  The  book  says  it  is  in  part  ii.,  chapter  ix.;  of  the  History 
of  John  the  Baptist." 

''  Well,  we  will  leave  '  John  the  Baptist'  out,  and  redd 
'  History  of  Infant  Baptism;  Oxford  edition,  1844.  Read 
out  of  Theodosia,  page  177." 

<■' '  France  seems  to  have  been  the  first  country  in  the 
world  where  baptism  by  affusion  was  used  ordinarily  to  per- 
sons in  health,  and  in  the  pidjlic  way  of  administering  it. 
It  being  allowed  to  loeak  children  (in  the  reign  of  Queen 
Elizabeth)  to  be  baptized  by  aspersion '" 

''  Stop,  stop,  Theophilus,"  said  Mr.  Mason,  'Hhat  last  sen- 
tence is  not  here.  Does  the  quotation  mark  end  with  the 
first  period  ?" 

''  No,  sir,  it  goes  on,  as  giving  a  continuous  statement  of 
Dr.  Wall." 

''  Now  mark  the  .dishonesty,  Theophilus.  The  $rst  sen- 
tence is  on  page  393 ;  the  second,  on  page  399  !     Six  pages 


302  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

between  tliem  !  Dr.  Wall  goes  on,  after  tlie  words  '  public 
way  of  administering  it/  to  say  that  ^  Gennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles, whose  words  I  gave  before,  is  the  first  author  that 
mentions  it  as  indifi"erent/  Now  this  Gennadius  of  Mar- 
seilles wrote  in  the  Jiftli  century,  and  this  Baptist  writer 
was  afraid  to  admit  that  baptism  was  administered  by  aifu- 
sion  in  the  fifth  century;  therefore  he  leaves  out  Dr.  Wall's 
statement,  and  weaves  a  Baptist  coat  out  of  garbled  extracts  ! 
And  these  are  the  men  who  presume  to  impose  upon  a  read- 
ing people  in  this  age  of  the  world  !  But  let  us  follow 
/  Theodosia,'  and  afterward  we  will  release  Dr.  Wall  from 
such  unholy  hands.  The  sentence  you  commenced  is  on 
page  399  of  Wall.'^ 

''  ^  It  being  allowed  to  weak  children  (in  the  reign  of 
Queen  Elizabeth)  to  be  baptized  by  aspersion '  " 

'^  Dr.  Wall  says,  ^  by  affusion.'     Go  on.'' 

"  '  Many  fond  ladies  and  gentlemen '  " 

"Dr.  Wall  says,  '  geutle-womcn.'     Read  on." 

" '  First,  and  then  by  degrees  the  common  people,  would 
obtain  the  favor  of  the  priest  to  have  their  children  jmss  for 
weak  children,  too  tender  to  endure  dipping  in  the  water. 
As  for  sprinkling '  " 

"  Stop,  Theophilus,  that  is  all  Dr.  Wall  says  on  this  page. 
The  next  scraj)  is  taken  from  page  403,  four  pages  beyond. 
I  have  found  it.     Read  on." 

"  'As  for  sprinldijig,  properly  so  called,  it  was  at  1615 
just  then  beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It  must  have 
begun  in  the  disorderly  times  after  forty-one ' " 

''  Dr.  Wall  says,  '  1641.'     Go  on." 

"  ^  They  (the  Assembly  of  divines  in  Westminster)  re- 
formed the  font  into  a  basin '  "" 

"  Stop  ]  that  sentence  begins  twelve  lines  below  the  other. 
Read  on." 

"  '■  This  learned  assembly  could  not  remember  that  fonts 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  o03 

to  baptize  iu  liad  always  hcen  used  hy  the  lyrimitive  Chris- 
tians  long  before  tlie  beginning  of  Popery,  and  ever  since 
cliurcbes  were  built ;  but  that  sj)r inkling  for  the  purpose  of 
baptizing '  " 

"Stop,  Theophilus;  another /aw;.  Wall  says,  for  the 
'  COMMON  purpose  of  baptizing.^     Read  on.^^ 

"  '  Was  really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and  then  in 
other  Pojjish  countries)  in  times  of  Popery,  and  that,  accord- 
ingly, all  those  countries  in  which  the  usurped  power  of  the 
Fope  is  or  has  formerly  been  owned,  have  left  off  dipping  of 
children  in  the  fonts,  but  that  all  other  countries  in  the 
world,  which  had  never  regarded  his  authority,  do  still  use 
it ;  and  that  basins  (to  sprinkle  out  of)  except  in  cases  of 
necessity,  were  never  used  by  Papists,  or  any  other  Chris- 
tians whosoever,  till  by  themselves.' — History  of  John  t^e 
Baptist." 

"Now,  Theophilus,''  said  Mr.  Mason,  "this  pretended 
statement  of  Dr.  Wall  is  taken  from  four  different  places, 
extending  over  eleven  pages  of  Dr.  Wall's  work.  What  do 
3^ou  think  of  such  a  writer  as  '  Theodosia  ?'  " 

"Well,  Mr.  Mason, 'all  that  I  can  say  is,  if  he  ever  saw 
Dr.  Wall's  book,  he  has  used  it  dishonestly  ;  if  he  never  did 
see  it,  but  followed  some  one  else,  he  has  used  it  ignorantly ; 
either  way,  he  is  not  a  fit  person  to  teach  the  people.'^ 

"A  very  reasonable  conclusion,  Theophilus.  Yet  he  has 
the  impudence  to  charge  Pedobaptist  divines  with  falsehood  ! 
He  asks  this  question,  which  would  well  apply  to  himself,  if 
he  had  divinity  enough  in  his  head  to  make  him  a  doctor ; 
'Can  it  he  possible  that  doctors  of  divinity  will  impose  such 
falsehoods  on  their  people  in  order  to  sustain  the  practice  of 
the  Church  r'' 

"And  I  would  ask,  Mr.  Mason,  with  your  leave.  Can  Bap- 
tist immersion  only  he  sustained  hy  imposing  upon  the  igno- 
rant \vith  misrepresentations  of  the  'Fathers,^  and  garbling 


304  THEOPHILUS     V/ ALT  on;    OR, 

ilie  writings  of  Pedohoptists  ?  If  so,  I  have  notliiog  to  do 
with  it.  A  doctrine  which  needs  such  assistance  was  never 
taught  of  Grod,  and  cannot  be  required  to  be  believed  by 
any  thinking,  reasoning  man.  I  am  disgusted  with  the 
whole  batch  of  agitators,  who  strive  to  keep  the  world  in 
commotion  about  the  quantity  of  water  one  ought  to  use  in 
baptism.  The  more  I  see  of  unfairness  in  these  Baptist 
writers,  the  more  I  am  led  to  question  whether  they  believe 
immersion  to  be  the  commandment  of  Christ.  An  honest 
opinion,  maintained  honestly,  is  commendable;  but  when 
frauds  are  resorted  to  in  order  to  prove  it,  I  am  compelled 
to  reject  both  the  truth  of  the  opinion  and  the  lionesty  of  its 
advocate." 

'^  Hold,  hold,  Theophilus.  Do  not  go  too  far.  It  is  hard 
to  think  that  these  men  do  not  believe  ivhat  tJiei/  say  ;  let  us 
give  them  the  benefit  of  a  good  intention,  whilst  we  give 
them  our  pity  for  having  a  bad  cause. 

'^  But  let  us  return  to  Dr.  Wall.  Bead  the  next  extract 
which  '  Theodosia'  makes  from  him." 

"  '  Now  look  at  page  403  of  this  other  volume,  by  the  same 
author,  (Wall,)  and  read  the  passage  I  have  marked.  "  The 
way  that  is  ordinarily  used,  we  cannot  deny  to  be  a  novelty, 
brought  into  this  Church  (the  English)  by  those  that  had 
learned  it  at  Germany,  or  at  Greneva.  And  they,  not  con- 
tented to  follow  the  example  of  pouring  a  quantity  of  water, 
(which  had  there  been  introduced  instead  of  immersion,^ 
but  improved  it  (if  I  may  so  abuse  that  word)  from  pouring 
to  sprinkling,  that  it  might  have  as  little  resemblance  to  the 
ancient  way  of  baptizing  as  possible." — ^cf  of  Hist,  of 
John  the  Baptist.'  (I !)  This  is  all  he  has  here,  I  believe, 
Mr.  Mason." 

'^  Well,  now,  Theophilus,  you  will  not  be  surprised  to  hear 
that  there  is'  no  such  j^'-'ssage  in  Dr.  Wall's  '  Defence.' 
There  is  not  a  word  of  it  on  page  403,  nor  is  it  anywhere 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  305 

else  in  tlie  book.  I  have  looked  in  vain  for  even  the 
detached  sentences,  thinking  they  may  have  been  thrown 
together,  as  the  ladies  sew  patches  in  a  qnilt.  But  I  cannot 
find  one  sentence  in  Dr.  Wall  agreeing  with  this  quotation 
in  '  Theodosia.''  '' 

'^  Very  well,  Mr.  Mason,  the  rule  is,  if  the  reference  is 
wrong,  and  the  passage  is  not  found  by  it,  to  throw  it  out 
of  the  argument.  Let  it  go.  But  let  us  have  a  word  about 
Dr.  Wall.  He  was  a  member  of  the  Church  of  England,  I 
believe, '^ 

"  Yes,  but  at  the  same  time  he  was  a  strong  advocate  of 
immersion.  Indeed,  when  he  wrote,  and  long  before,  immer- 
sion was  practiced  in  the  English  Church.  In  his  day, 
however,  it  was  on  the  decline,  and  Dr.  Wall  labored  to 
restore  it.  As  you  see,  the  Doctor  is,  to  that  extent,  only  a 
Baptist  witness  at  last,  although  he  is  made  to  testify  as  if 
he  were  against  them  on  the  mode  of  baptism.  Dr.  Wall 
thought  dipping  was  the  proper  mode,  although  pouring  he 
regarded  as  sufficient.  In  his  History,  vol.  ii.,  p.  393,  he 
says  :  '■  I  will  here  endeavor  to  trace  the  times  when  it  (dip- 
ping) began  to  be  left  off  in  the  several  countries  of  the 
AVest — meaning  still  in  the  case  of  infants  that  were  in 
health,  and  in  the  public  baptism;  for  in  the  case  of  sickly 
or  weakly  infants,  there  icas  always,  in  all  countries,  an 
aJloiaance  of  affusion  or  sjyrinkling  to  be  given  in  haste,  and 
in  the  house,  or  any  other  place. ^  Now  this  sentence  comes 
immediately  before  the  first  extract  in  '  Theodosia,'  yet  the 
author  could  not  see  it.  If,  as  Dr.  Wall  says,  sieldy  and 
iceaJdy  infants  have  always  been  baptized  by  affusion,  then 
affusion  has  always  been  practiced  in  the  Church,  for  it  is 
evident  that  there  has  been  no  age  of  Christendom  in  which 
there  were  no  weakly  or  sickly  infants." 

I  am  ashamed  to  acknowledge,  Mr.  Mason/'  said  Theo- 


306  TiiEorniLus   walton;    or, 

philus,  ^^  that  my  mind  was  favorably  impressed  after  reading 
that  book,  '  Theodosia  Ernest/  But,  to  tell  you  the  truth, 
I  had  never  heard  so  much  as  one  sermon  from  a  Pedobap- 
tist  on  the  ordinance.  A  Pedobaptist  hook  I  never  read. 
Indeed,  I  was  of  the  opinion  that  you  had  no  defence  to 
make;  that  your  silence,  under  the  repeated  challenges,  and 
unceasing  efforts  of  Baptist  teachers  to  convert  the  world  to 
their  views,  was  dictated  by  a  sense  of  the  iceakness  of  your 
cause,  rather  than  a  desire  for  peace.  And  now  that  I  have 
heard  your  arguments,  I  am  surprised  that  Pedobaptists 
generally  use  so  little  effort  to  enlighten  the  people.  I 
honestly  believe,  sir,  that  very  many  persons  would  have 
united  with  your  Churches,  who  have  gone  to  the  Baptists, 
if  you  had  taken  one-half  the  pains  to  show  them  the  true 
view  of  the  subject,  that  have  been  expended  in  proselyting 
them.'' 

^'I  have  no  doubt  of  it,  Theophilus,"  replied  Mr.  Mason; 
''  but  we  have  always  considered  the  mode  of  baptism  as 
being  non-essential  to  the  validity  of  the  ordinance,  and 
hence  our  want  of  diligence  in  our  defence.  Yet  I  confess 
that  many  of  us  have  been  to  blame.  We  have  kept  quiet 
under  the  most  severe  and  oftentimes  the  most  unchristian- 
like  attacks,  not  because  we  feared  controversy,  but  because 
our  time  has  been  more  actively,  and,  as  we  thought,  more 
profitably  employed,  in  endeavoring  to  convert  men  from  sin 
to  Christ." 

'^  Yes,  sir;  and  whilst  you  have  been  the  means,  in  God's 
hands,  of  converting  them,  the  Baptists  were  busy  in  catch- 
ing them,  by  their  numerous  agents,  and  securing  them  to 
their  Church.  Thus  you  have  been  often  laboring  to  build 
up  a  rival  interest  that  would  destroy  every  one  of  your 
Churches  to-morrow,  if  it  could  be  done." 

''The  Lord  must  be  the  judge,  Theophilus.      "We  have 


THE     MAJESTY     OT     TRUTH.  307 

acted  In  all  good  conscience,  and  if  we  have  erred,  it  has 
been  in  charity  for  the  souh  of  men,  rather  than  out  of  a 
desire  to  place  their  names  upon  our  Church  books. 

"  But  let  us  return  to  Dr.  Wall,  and  let  him  speak  for 
himself  about  the  rise  of  baptism  by  affusion.  On  page  385, 
vol.  ii.,  he  says  :  '  On  the  other  side,  the  Antipedobaptists 
Tvill  be  as  unfair  in  their  turn,  if  they  do  not  grant  that  in 
the  case  of  sickness,  weakliness,  haste,  ivant  of  quantify/  of 
water,  or  such  like  extraordinary  occasions,  baptism  by  affu- 
sion of  water  on  the  face  was  hi/  the  ancients  counted  suffi- 
cient haptlsm.'  He  then  mentions  the  case  of  Novatian,  to 
which  I  have  already  alluded,  and  gives  Cyprian's  opinion 
about  the  validity  of  the  ordinance  thus  performed.  Cyprian 
says  :  'And  no  man  need  therefore  think  otherwise,  because 
these  sick  people,  when  they  receive  the  grace  of  our  Lord, 
(baptism,)  have  nothing  but  an  affusion  or  sprinkling : 
whereas  the  Holy  Scripture,  b}^  the  prophet  Ezekiel,  says  : 
Then  icill  I  sprinkle  clean  icater  upon  you,  and  ye  shall  he 
clean,''  etc.  And,  a  little  after,  Cyprian  says  :  '  We  see  this 
proved  by  the  experience  of  the  thing :  that  such  as  are 
baptized  and  do  obtain  the  grace  in  their  sickness,  when  need 
so  requires,  are  freed  from  the  unclean  spirit  with  which  they 
were  before  possessed ;  and  do  live  commendably  and  approved 
in  the  Church,  and  do  every  day  proceed  by  the  increase  of 
their  faith  to  an  increase  of  the  heavenly  grace,'  etc.  This 
was  the  opinion  of  a  Christian  bishop  in  the  third  century. 

''  Dr.  AVall  then  proceeds  to  give  us  the  case  of  a  soldier 
who  was  baptized  about  the  same  time.  His  words  are  : 
^  The  acts  also  of  St.  Laurence,  who  suffered  martyrdom 
about  the  same  time  as  Cyprian,  do  tell  how  one  of  the  soldiers 
that  were  to  be  his  executioners,  being  converted,  brought 
a  pitcher  of  water  for  Laurence  to  baptize  him  with.'  He 
then  states  that  ^Eusebius  also  mentions  Basilides  baptized 
in  prison  by  some  brethren.'     Dr.  Wall  thinks  this  case  a 


308  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

parallel  to  that  of  tlie  Philippian  jailer^  mentioned  in  tlie 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  and  that  they  were  both  baptized  '  by 
affusion  only  of  some  small  quantity  of  water/  The  testi- 
mony of  GlennadiuSj  of  Marseilles,  is  next  brought  forth,  in 
which  he  states  that  both  immersion  and  affusion  were  prac- 
ticed in  the  fifth  century.  Thomas  Aquinas,  in  the  thir- 
teenth century,  says  :  '  Baptism  may  be  given  not  only  by 
immersion,  but  also  by  affusion  or  sprinkling  with  water/ 
Bonaventure  says,  that  the  way  of  affusion  was  probably 
used  hi/  the  ajjostles,  and  was  in  his  time  (A.  D.  1260)  used 
in  the  churches  of  France,  and  some  others.  Erasmus, 
A.  J).  1500,  speaking  of  the  baptism  of  infants,  says : 
'  With  us  (the  Dutch)  they  have  the  water  'poured  on  them  : 
in  England  they  are  dipped.^  Now,  to  sum  up  Dr.  Wall's 
argument  in  a  few  words  :  immersion,  or  dipping,  he  believes 
to  be  the  common  practice  of  antiquity,  but  pouring  and  sprink- 
ling, or  baptism  by  affusion,  he  declares  was  always  and 
everywliere  considered  valid,  wherever  it  was  inconvenient 
or  unsafe  to  baptize  otherwise.  In  proof  of  this  he  gives 
several  cases.  Novatian  (A.  D.  251)  was  baptized  in  bed  by 
affusion.  Bishop  Cyprian  (A.  D.  255)  declares  the  baptism 
to  be  valid  which  is  performed  in  sickness  by  affusion. 
Laurence,  the  martyr,  (about  A.  D.  258,)  baptized  a  soldier 
with  water  which  was  brought  to  him  in  a  pitcher.  A.  D. 
495,  Gennadius  testifies  that  immersion  and  affusion  were 
both  used  in  the  French  and  other  Churches.  A.  D.  1255, 
Thomas  Aquinas  gives  the  same  testimony.  A.  D.  1260, 
Bonaventure  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  tlie  apostles  baptized 
by  affusion,  and  says  it  is  used  in  the  Church  in  his  time. 
A.  D.  1500,  or  1525,  Erasmus  declares  that  pouring  is  prac- 
ticed in  Holland. 

^^  These  facts  are  cited  by  a  strong  believer  in  immersion ; 
one  who  recommended  its  restoration  in  the  English  Church. 
Although  a  Pedobaptist,  he  was  an  immersionist;  but  the 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.  309 

proofs  of  tlie  validity  of  affusion,  under  certain  circum- 
tances,  were  so  strong,  that  he  docs  not  hesitate  to  produce 
them  as  evidence  that  baptism  in  those  cases  has  always 
been  administered  by  affusion  from  the  beginning.  Not- 
withstanding this,  however.  Dr.  Wall  is  quoted  by  '  Theo- 
dosia'  as  tracing  pouring  and  sprinkling  back  only  about  a 
hundred  years  before  his  own  times  1  He  is  made  to  say 
that  affusion  began  under  Queen  Elizabeth  in  England ;  and 
sprinkling  only  commenced  about  A.  D.  1641.  According 
to  this,  their  own  testimony,  as  our  English  Bible  was  pub- 
lished in  1611 — thirty  years,  before  sprinkling  was  practiced, 
and  whilst  pouring  was  a  deviation  from  the  practice  of 
the  Church  of  England — it  is  impossible  that  our  Bible 
translators  could  have  done  injustice  to  Baptist  views  by  the 
translation  ! 

'■'■  AYe  have  found  the  first  case  of  Baptist  immersion  in  the 
hands  of  Eunomius,  in  the  year  375,  practiced  by  believers 
in  infant  baptism.  It  is  very  clear,  then,  that  Eunomius 
was  not  a  Baptist,  unless  we  admit  that  a  Baptist  can  be  a 
Pcdohaptist.  Now,  let  us  examine  the  first  case  of  a  true, 
genuine  Baptist  recorded  in  history.  There  have  existed  in 
parts  of  France,  Switzerland,  and  Italy,  for  many  years,  seve- 
ral sects  of  Christians,  who  have  been  called  Albigenses, 
Waldenses,  and  Vaudois.  Berengarius,  who  lived  about 
A.  D.  1035,  has  been  charged  with  denying  infant  baptism, 
together  with  the  lawfulness  of  marriages,  and  the  Romish 
doctrine  of  transubstantiation.  Whether  he  baptized  by 
immersion  is  not  stated.  It  is  probable,  however,  that  he 
did  not  deny  baptism  to  infants,  as  he  was  admitted  to  the 
Lord's  supper  by  the  Catholics  after  he  recanted  his  views 
about  the  eucharist.  When  the  Lutherans  sent,  in  1530,  a 
deputation  to  the  Waldenses  to  know  their  state  and  doc- 
trine, they  affirmed  that  they  practiced  infant  hapttism,  and 
that   their   fathers   had    always    done   so.     The    first   well- 


310  THEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

defined  case  of  agreement  with  modern  Baptist  views  on  tlie 
subject  of  infant  baptism  was  that  of  Peter  Bruis  and  his 
followers.  I  say  the  first  agreement  with  modern  Baptist 
views  as  to  theprati^iVe,  not  the  reasons  for  it.  Peter  Bruis 
denied  the  use  of  infant  baptism,  because  all  infants,  whe- 
ther they  were  baptized  or  not,  inasmuch  as  they  could  not 
believe,  could  not  be  saved.  If  the  Petrobrussians  used 
Baptist  immersion,  (which  is  not  proved,)  and  denied 
infant  baptism,  they  cannot  still  be  called  Bajjtists,  because 
they  taught  that  no  infant  dying  in  infancy  could  be  saved ; 
whereas  our  Baptist  friends  agree  with  us  that  all  such 
infants  are  saved,  whether  baptized  or  not.  We  must  come 
still  nearer  to  our  own  times,  then,  to  find  a  Baptist 
Church. 

'^In  the  year  1522,  during  the  Reformation  of  which 
Luther  was  the  principal  champion,  three  men  in  Germany, 
Storick,  Buccold,  and  Munzer,  declared  that  there  were 
other  things  to  be  reformed  besides  those  attacked  by 
Luther.  Infant  baptism  they  declared  to  be  unscriptural ; 
'  that  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ  it  was  not  to  be  endured 
that  some  men  should  be  so  rich,  and  others  so  poor;  or  that 
the  boors  should  be  held  to  such  burdensome  services. 
Abundance  of  people  flocked  to  them;  and  the  more,  for 
that  there  had  been  before  discontents  and  some  insurrec- 
tions, and  of  those  poorer  sort  of  people,  because  of  their 
foresaid  hardships.'  They  defied  the  magistrates,  preached 
up  rebellion,  and  soon  set  the  nation  in  a  flame.  They  plun- 
dered the  rich;  set  up  a  '  kingdom'  in  the  city  of  Munster; 
and  were  with  difiiculty  subdued  by  the  civil  power.  These 
men  were  genuine  Baptists,  so  far  as  the  mode  and  subjects 
of  baptism  were  concerned.  Yet  it  would  be  unfair  to  call 
the  '  kingdom'  of  Munster  a  Baptist  Church.  They  were 
in  the  sixteenth  century  precisely  what  the  Mormons  are  in 
our  own  day.     The  multitude  cared  nothin.o"  for  baptism — 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.  311 

wlietlier  it  was  by  immersion  or  pouring,  or  wlietlier  infants 
were  baptized  or  not.  They  were  allured  into  the  support 
•of  the  Anabaptist  leaders  by  a  thirst  for  a  change  of  poli- 
tical condition.  Buccold,  their  king,  held  the  same  position 
toward  them  that  Brigham  Young  holds  to  the  Mormons  of 
Utah.  They  practiced  polygamy^  and  committed  the  same 
outrages  in  Germany  which  have  distinguished  the  followers 
of  Joe  Smith.  We  will  not  attribute  the  origin  of  the  Bap- 
tist Church  to  the  '  Mad  Men  of  Munster,'  but,  coming  still 
nearer  to  our  own  times,  we  find  a  Pelcujicui  Baptist  Church 
formed  by  one  Menno,  of  Friesland. 

'^  This  Menno  rejected  infant  baptism;  denied  original 
sin;  denied  that  Christ  had  his  flesh  of  the  Virgin 
Mary;  and  asserted  that  souls  sleep  until  the  resur- 
rection. Some  of  the  followers  of  Menno  baptized  only 
by  immersion ;  but  the  majority  of  them  baptized  by  affu- 
sion. If,  then,  we  reject  these  last,  and  take  the  immer- 
sionists,  we  have  a  Baptist  Church;  but  certainly  not  au 
ortliodox  one.  The  denial  of  original  sin  ought  not  to  be 
charged  against  all  our  modern  Baptists,  nor  any  error  in 
reference  either  to  the  humanity  or  the  Divinity  of  Christ. 

''  We  have  not  yet  found  a  genuine  Baptist  Church,  and 
ice  shall  search  the  ^mges  of  history  in  vain  for  one  before 
the  beg  inning  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Eunomius  bap- 
tized by  immersion,  but  held  to  infant  baptism.  Peter 
Bruis  would  not  baptize  infants,  because  he  believed  they 
were  all  lost  if  they  died  in  infancy.  Menno  denied  infant 
baptism,  but  he  practiced  affusion,  and  so  do  his  followers  at 
this  day  in  Holland.  So  that  to  find  an  orthodox  Baptist 
Church,  one  that  baptizes  only  by  immersion,  rejects  infant 
baptism,  believes  in  the  Divinity  of  Christ,  and  the  deprav- 
ity of  the  heart,  we  can  ascend  no  higher  up  the  stream  of 
time  than  the  seventeenth  century." 

'^  The  Baptists  claim  the  Waldenses,  Mr.  Mason,"  said 


812  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

Tlieopliilus^  ^^  and  say  that  they  can  establish  a  succession  of 
true  gospel  Churches  up  to  the  days  of  the  apostles." 

"  Let  them  do  so,  then,  and  prove  their  descent  from 
these  gospel  Churches,  and  we  are  ready  to  admit  their 
claims.  Intelligent  Baptists,  however,  know  the  absurdity 
of  such  pretensions,  and  regard  their  advocates  as  servile 
copyists  of  the  High  Church  Episcopalians  in  their  efforts 
to  establish  a  personal  succession  of  ministers,  transmitting 
the  ministerial  authority  from  the  hands  of  the  apostles.  A 
succession  of  immersed  achninistrators  will  be  found  just  as 
easily  as  the  fabled  stone  which  changes  into  gold  every 
metal  it  touches.  Hlsforij  furnishes  no  proofs  to  sustain 
their  position  ]  High  Church  Baptists  may  call  in  that  often - 
needed  faculty,  fancy,  and  fabricate  an  imaginary  chain  of 
Baptist  ministers  to  the  days  of  the  apostles  3  they  may 
become  intoxicated  with  the  pride  of  bigotry,  and  cry  out, 
^We  only  are  the  Church!'  but  sensible  men  will  place 
their  assumptions  side  by  side  with  the  ravings  of  the 
lunatic  and  the  dreams  of  the  frenzied  mind. 

''I  have  said  that  the  Mennonites  baptized  hj pouring  as 
well  as  by  immersion.  The  present  Mennonites  declare  that 
Menno  himself  did  the  same,  and  consequently  they  plead 
his  authority.  The  author  of  '■  Theodosia  Ernest'  quotes 
a  work  written  by  Drs.  Ypeig  and  Durmont,  of  the  Dutch 
lleformed  Church,  to  prove  that  the  Mennonites  were 
descended  from  the  Waldenses,  and  these  from  the  apostles. 
He  also  affirms  that  the  Welsh  Baptists  can  trace  their 
descent  up  to  the  sixth  or  seventh  century.  Suppose  we 
admit  the  interpretation  given  to  the  words  of  these  doctors, 
does  not  the  fact  that  the  Mennonites  do  now  and  have 
always  baptized  by  pouring,  destroy  the  '  succession'  of 
immersers  ?  As  to  the  antiquity  of  the  Welsh  Baptists,  it 
is  mere  assertion,  without  a  shadow  of  proof.  Here  is  the 
'  Ecclesiastical  History  of  England  and  Normandy,'  in  four 


THE     MAJESTY     OE     TRUTH.  313 

volumes,  written  by  Ordericus  Vitalis,  in  the  eleventh  cen- 
tury. It  is  one  of  the  most  extensive  Church  histories  ever 
written.  But  it  mentions  not  one  word  about  Welsh  Bap- 
tists, whilst  a  great  number  of  schismatics,  and  those  whom 
the  author,  being  a  Catholic,  regarded  as  heretics,  come  in 
for  a  share  of  condemnation  and  rebuke.  Here  is  the 
^Ecclesiastical  History'  of  the  ^Venerable  Bede,'  an  Eng- 
lish monk,  written  in  the  eighth  century.  He  says  not  a 
word  about  Welsh  Baptists,  or  anybody  that  can  possibly  be 
mistaken  for  them.  Now,  is  it  possible  that  such  people 
existed  in  Wales  without  these  men  knowing  the  fact?  Is 
it  probable  that,  knowing  their  existence,  they  concealed  it  ? 
No  intelligent  mind  can  be  at  a  loss  for  an  answer. 

'^  But  we  are  not  without  Baptist  testimony  on  this  sub- 
ject also.  Here  is  a  '  Memoir  of  Roger  Williams,'  written  by 
Rev.  James  D.  Knowles,  a  Baptist  minister,  and  '  Professor 
of  Pastoral  Duties  in  Newton  Theological  Seminary.'  Speak- 
ing of  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America,  he  says  :  '  Mr. 
Ezekiel  Holliman  was  selected  to  baptize  Mr.  Williams,  who 
then  baptized  the  administrator  and  ten  others.  This  event 
occurred  in  March,  1638-9.  Thus  was  founded  the  first 
Baptist  church  in  America,  and  the  SECOND,  as  it  is  stated, 
ill  the  British  Empire.'  The  church  at  Providence  was, 
then,  the  second  Baptist  church  in  the  British  empire. 
The  first,  as  we  have  already  seen,  was  the  London  church, 
established,  as  the  Baptist  historian,  Crosby,  informs  us,  in 
the  year  1633,  six  years  before  the  baptism  of  Roger 
Williams.  Now  where  did  these  English  Baptists  get  their 
baptism?  Did  they  get  it  from  the  old  Welsh  Baptists? 
No.  They  originated  it,  just  as  Roger  Williams  did. 
Hear  Crosby  again.  After  stating  that  some  few  English 
Baptists  went  to  Holland  to  be  baptized,  (Query:  Why  did 
they  go  to  Holland,  if  there  were  Baptists  in  Wales?) 
he  says,  vol.  i.,  p.  103  :  ^  But  the  greatest  number  of  the 
14 


314  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

Englisli  Baptists,  and  tlie  more  judicious,  regarded  all  this 
as  needless  trouble,  and  wliat  proceeded  from  the  old  Popish 
doctrine  of  right  to  administer  sacraments  by  an  uninter- 
rupted succession,  which  neither  the  Church  of  Rome,  nor 
the  Church  of  England,  much  less  the  modern  dissenters, 
could  prove  to  be  with  them.  They  affirmed,  therefore,  and 
practiced  accordingly,  that  after  a  general  corruption  of 
baptism,  an  unhaptized  person  might  warrantably  baptize, 
and  so  begin  a  reformation.'  So  the  English  Baptists  made 
their  baptism,  and  the  Hollanders  practiced  pouring  as  well 
as  immersion  !  Here,  then,  we  have  the  ^  Baptist  succes- 
sion' destroyed  at  a  blow. 

^^  Whether  American  Baptists  get  their  immersion  from 
Roger  Williams  or  not,  is  a  question  altogether  trifling.  If 
it  is  proved  that  the  church  in  Providence  did  not  give  their 
immersion  to  others,  the  Baptists  are  not  relieved  from  their 
difficulty.  They  must  get  their  immersion  either  from 
Williams,  from  England,  or  from  Holland.  If  they  get  it 
from  Roger  Williams,  it  dates  no  higher  than  1638-9.  If 
from  England,  it  goes  back  only  to  1633.  If  they  get  it 
from  the  Mennonites,  tliey  get  it  from  those  who  held  POURING 
to  be  as  valid  as  immersion.  Thus  their  high-sounding 
claims  have  no  more  solid  foundation  than  the  'baseless 
fabric  of  a  vision.'  Their  high  assumptions  are  mere  silly 
pratings,  unworthy  of  belief. 

"  I  think  I  have  given  you  sufficient  evidence  to  show  the 
Baptist  claims  to  an  uninterrupted  succession  of  immersers 
to  be  wholly  destitute  of  foundation.  But  as  Theodosia 
Ernest  labors  diligently  to  establish  such  claims,  I  will  give 
you  some  more  Baptist  evidence  on  the  subject.  Let  me 
read  you  from  page  188  of  Theodosia :  '  It  seems  probable, 
however,  f'om  recent  histoincal  researches,  that  tho  oldest 
Baptist  church  in  the  United  States  is  that  at  Newport,  in 
Rhode  Island,  founded  by  John  Clark,  against  the  regularity 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH  315 

of  wliose  baptism  there  lias,  so  far  as  I  know,  been  nothing 
.  alleged/ 

^^  Now,  observe  the  point  wliich  I  wish  to  make.  Recent 
historical  researches  have  convinced  the  author  that  the 
Newport  church  is  the  oldest  in  the  United  States.  Now 
let  us  hear  from  one  of  these  men  who  has  been  making 
these  researches.  I  allude  to  Mr.  Tustin,  the  editor  of  the 
Southern  Baptist,  published  in  Charleston,  S.  C.  In  a 
recent  article  in  his  paper,  Mr.  Tustin  says :  ^It  is  also  said 
that  the  first  regular  Baptist  church  in  America  was  formed 
in  Newj^ort  in  1638,  and  that  this  church,  having  an  un- 
broken succession  till  the  present,  is  the  only  proper  repre- 
sentative of  the  first  Baptists  in  this  country.  To  correct 
these  and  many  other  loose  statements,  would  require  more 
space  than  we  could  give  in  this  paper ;  and  we  now  take  up 
the  matter,  because  on  two  occasions  we  have  promised  to 
set  this  matter  right.^  " 

'^  So  we  are  getting  the  Baptist  '  Doctors'  into  trouble 
again  !"  exclaimed  Theophilus. 

'^  Yes/'  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "but  let  us  hear  Mr.  Tustin 
further.  ^  In  our  leading  article  in  this  paper,  of  August 
4th  of  this  year,  we  acknowledged  that  we  owed  a  little 
debt  of  amendment  to  some  of  our  Baptist  writers,  for  an 
error  which  we  ourselves  gave  currency  to,  about  ten  years 
ago,  by  virtue  of  certain  personal  and  oflScial  relations  we 
then  held  to  the  parties  in  the  Providence  and  Newport 
churches.  The  editor  of  this  paper,  with  one  of  the  Judges 
of  the  Supreme  Court  of  Bliode  Island,  and  a  pastor  in 
Providence,  drew  up  a  report  on  the  historical  merits  of  this 
case,  which  became  widely  circulated,  and  it  was  to  the 
effect  that  the  Newport  church  was  the  older  of  the  two. 
No  Baptist  writer  had  ever  hroaclied  such  a  theory  hefore, 
and  we  can  only  say  now,  that  the  materials  for  the  report 
of  that  committee  were  entirely  inadequate,  and  reviews  of 


819  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

the  report,  by  more  competent  authorities  since,  have  shown 
that  we  and  the  parties  a-cting  with  us  in  that  arbitration 
were  greatly  misled,  and  the  judgment  rendered  was  entirely 
untenable.'  " 

^^  So  Mr.  Tustiu  was  the  author  of  Theodosia's  ^  historical 
researches,'  "  remarked  Theophilus,  "  and  now  he  makes  the 
^  amende  honorable,'  and  confesses  that  he  was  wrong." 

'^  Yes,  Theophilus ;  Mr.  Tustin  started  the  theory  that  the 
Newport  church  was  older  than  the  Roger  Williams  church 
in  Providence,  and  now  he  takes  it  back.  So  witlr'his 
recantation  we  establish  the  fact  that  the  church  in  Provi- 
dence was  the  first  Baptist  church  in  America." 

'^But  then,"  continued  Theophilus,  ^^  I  notice  that  Theo- 
dosia  says,  on  page  187,  '  The  truth  is,  the  society  estab- 
lished by  Roger  Williams,  Holliman,  and  others,  soon  died 
out.'     Is  there  any  truth  in  that  ?" 

"■  Let  Mr.  Tustin  answer  for  me.  He  says  :  ^  But  the 
original  Roger  Williams  church,  as  it  is  sometimes  called, 
lias  been  so  often  cited,  and  so  often  misrepresented  by 
Baptists,  especially  at  a  distance  from  the  field,  that  it  will 
be  useful  to  correct  some  of  these  errors.  It  is  said,  for 
example,  that  the  first  religious  society  formed  by  Roger 
Williams  and  his  friends  in  1639  was  no  church  at  all,  and 
that  it  crumbled  into  j^ieces  in  a  few  months.'  Here,  then, 
Mr.  Tustin  says  that  the  assertion  that  the  Roger  Williams 
church  died  out,  is  a  misrepresentation  of  the  facts.  More- 
over, he  proves  that  this  same  Newport  church  was  estab- 
lished exactly  in  the- same  way  with  the  Providence  society. 
He  saj^s  that  Roger  Williams,  once  a  clergyman  of  the 
Church  of  England,  was  immersed  by  Mr.  Holliman,  a  lay- 
man, and  Mr.  Williams  then  immersed  the  rest  of  the 
company.  '  The  line  of  historical  baptism  fails  at  this  point.'' 
So  writes  Mr.  Tustin.  ^  Dr.  John  Clark  was  the  first 
preacher    in    Newport,    though    by   whom    ordained,    and 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  317 

whether  originally  a  Congregationalist  or  an  EiDiscopalian 
minister^  does  not  appear.  The  persons  baptized  by  him  in 
the  Newport  church  could  only  have  received  baptism  by 
him  in  the  first  instance  as  a  minister  of  another  persuasion, 
or  in  the  capacity  of  a  lay  baptism.  Any  atiemjit  to  trace  a 
line  of  successional  haptizers  in  this  countri/,  through  any 
other  course,  deserves  our  connniiseration,  and  should  seek 
for  arguments  at  Rome  or  Oxford.'  Pretty  strong  language 
for  a  Baptist  V 

^^That  settles  the  question/^  said  Theophilus;  '^but  there 
is  still  another  matter  to  be  examined.  You  have  so  clearly 
refuted  Theodosia's  arguments,  by  her  own  Baptist  brother, 
that  I  have  no  doubt  you  can  give  us  light  upon  this  subject 
too.  I  find  it  stated  in  Theodosia,  p.  187  :  ^Of  all  the  thou- 
sands of  Baptist  churches  in  Anfierica,  there  are  none  lohose 
pastors  or  members  have  had  any  manner  of  dependence  on 
the  church  founded  hy  Roger  Williams.'  Again,  on  the 
same  page  :  ^But  none  of  them  received  baptism  from  Roger 
Williams,  or  the  church  said  to  have  been  established,  by  him 
at  Providence.'  And  again  :  ^It  cannot  be  proved  that  any 
Baptist  icho  received  baptism  in  that  body  and  by  their 
authority,  was  ever  concerned  in  baptizing  any  founder  of 
other  churches.'  How  stands  the  record  in  this  case,  Mr. 
Mason  V 

"  Well,  I  will  show  you.  I  have  here  in  my  hand,''  said 
Mr.  Mason,  '^  Benedict's  History  of  the  Baptists.  It  is  quite 
a  large  volume,  you  see,  and  is  the  standard  History  of  the 
Baptist  Church.  This  edition  was  printed  in  1855.  On 
page  459,  the  author  says  : 

^'^  Branches  of  the  Old  Providence  Church. — It 
would  be  difficult,  at  this  day,  to  make  a  complete  list  of  all  the 
Baptist  COMMUNITIES  which  have  sprung  f^orn  this  ancient 
and  prolific   mother.     From  it,  probably,   originated  in 


i 


318  TIIEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

early  times  all  which  arose  in  the  northern  part  of  the 
State.'  " 

"  Enougli !  enough  V  exclaimed  Theophilus.  "  We  have 
found  these  statements  of  Theodosia  to  be  a  tissue  of  false- 
hoods and  misrepresentations,  without  going  outside  of  the 
Baptist  Church/' 

"  But  let  us  take  another  view  of  the  matter/'  continued 
Mr.  Mason.  ''  We  see  from  the  Baptist  historian^  Benedict, 
that  the  baptism  of  Boger  Williams  was  propagated  by  numer- 
ous Baptist  communities.  But  still,  they  contend,  all  the 
Baptists  in  the  United  States  did  not  get  their  baptism  from 
the  Providence  church.  This  we  admit,  of  course.  The  ques- 
tion then  occurs,  whence  did  they  get  it  ?  We  are  told,  from 
England  and  Holland.  But  we  have  already  seen  that  the 
English  Baptists,  according  to  their  own  historian,  Crosby, 
originated  their  baptism  just  as  Boger  Williams  did  his. 
Only  a  few  English  Baptists  went  over  to  Holland  to  be 
immersed.  Now,  then,  if  it  appears  that  the  Baptists  in 
Holland  were  in  as  bad  a  predicament  as  those  of  England, 
we  hedge  up  the  path,  and  stop  the  mouths  of  these  pre- 
tenders to  '  succession.' 

''  I  shall  hold  on  to  the  Baptist  histories,  as  they  furnish 
ample  materials  for  the  demolition  of  'High  Church'  or 
'  Old  Landmark'  claims.  On  page  329  of  Benedict's  His- 
tory, we  have  some  important  developments.  Benedict 
quotes  Taylor,  an  English  Baptist  historian,  in  his  account 
of  the  first  Baptist  church  in  Holland.  Mark  my  words, 
for  this  is  important  testimony.  One  John  Smyth  separated 
from  the  church  of  England,  and  went  to  Holland.  There 
he  became  convinced  that  infant  baptism  was  wrong,  and 
that  baptism  was  to  be  performed  by  immersion  only.  But 
now  the  question  was,  where,  in  all  Holland,  was  there  a 
Baptist  church  from  which  immersion  could  be  obtained  if 


» 


THE    MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  819 

I  will  read  Taylor's  account,  as  given  by  Benedict :  '  It 
seems  that  Mr.  Smyth  and  his  friends  were  put  to  some  diffi- 
culty in  reviving  the  practice  of  immersion.  He  and  all  his 
disciples  had  been  sprinkled  in  their  infancy,  and  therefore, 
according  to  their  views,  were  unbaptized.  There  were, 
indeed,  many  churches  in  Holland  who  practiced  immersion, 
but,  as  they  differed  ividely  in  sentiments  from  liinij  he  did 
not  choose  to  receive  baptism  from  them.  This  completely 
refutes  Dr.  Mosheim' s  suj)position  that  the  English  Baptists 
derived  their  origin  from  the  German  and  Dutch  Mennon- 
ites,  and  that,  in  former  times,  they  adopted  their  doctrine 
in  all  its  points.  On  the  contrary,  we  see  that  the  first 
English  Baptists  of  winch  we  have  any  regular  account  after 
the  Reformation,  although  living  in  the  midst  of  the  Dutch 
Menno7iites,  declined  receiving  haptism  from  them,  on  account 
of  their  difference  of  opinions  in  many  importarit  points. 
The  foreign  Anabaptists,  says  Crosby,  (Baptist,)  were  such 
as  denied  Christ's  having  taken  flesh  of  the  Virgin  Mary, 
the  lawfulness  of  magistracy,  and  such  like,  which  Mr. 
Smyth  and  his  followers  looked  upon  as  great  errors,  so  that 
they  could  not  be  thought  by  him  proper  administrators  of 
baptism.  This  obliged  Mr.  Smyth  to  consider  of  some  other 
means  of  reviving  the  ordinance.  What  method  he  took  is 
not  very  clearly  stated.  It  is  most  prohahle  that  those  who 
icere  convinced  of  the  duty  of  believers^  haptism  first  formed 
themselves  into  a  church,  and  then  appointed  two  of  their 
number  (perhaps  Mr.  Smyth  and  Mr.  Helwisse)  to  baptize 
each  other,  and  afterwards  to  baptize  the  rest.  This  subject 
caused  considerable  uneasiness  and  reproach  to  the  first  Bap- 
tists after  the  Reformation,  both  General  and  Particular. 
A  similar  difficulty  occurred  at  the  formation  of  the  original 
Baptist  Church  in  America,  by  Mr.  Roger  Williams,  who 
had  recourse  to  the  same  expedient ;  and  we  shall  find  in  the 
sequel  of  this  history,  that  the  good  men  in  Leicestershire,  in 


k 


820  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

the  middle  of  the  last  century,  ichen  placed  in  similar  cir' 
cumstancesj  adopted  the  same  method.'  Benedict,  pp.  329, 
330." 

'' We^^,  well !"  exclaimed  Theophilus ;  "  tlie  Baptist  ship 
^  Succession'  has  run  aground  now,  to  a  moral  certainty  !" 

''Yes,  indeed,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  ''the  vessel  is  foun- 
dered. There  are  but  three  lines  by  which  American  Bap- 
tists can  get  back  to  the  Waldenses,  of  whom  they  boast  so 
much,  but  without  reason,  for  they  were  not,  and  are  not 
now.  Baptists.  Roger  Williams  breaks  one  of  these  lines 
short  off,  and  stops  that  'succession'  at  Providence,  Rhode 
Island.  The  London  Baptist  Church,  formed  in  1633, 
breaks  the  English  line  by  originating  their  immersion  in 
London.  And  Mr.  John  Smyth  breaks  the  Holland  line,  in 
1608,  by  setting  Roger  Williams  an  example  in  the  manu- 
facture of  immersion.  We  come,  then,  to  a  stand-still,  at 
the  head  of  '  Salt  River,'  with  a  gap  of  more  than  fifteen 
hundred  years  between  the  Baptist  succession  and  the  times 
of  the  apostles !" 

"But  perhaps,  after  all,  Mr.  Mason,"  observed  Theophi- 
lus,  "  the  Baptists  may  contend  that  some  of  these  Mennon- 
ites  emigrated  to  America  and  gave  them  '  the  succession,' 
and  that  the  Baptists  in  this  country  were  not  so  particular 
as  Mr.  John  Smyth  and  his  friends." 

"  Well,  Theophilus,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  we  can  answer 
that  argument,  too.  There  is  the  Religious  Encyclopaedia, 
a  Baptist  work.  If  you  turn  to  the  article  '  Mennonites,' 
you  will  find  it  stated  that  the  Mennonites  practice  immer- 
sion and  pouring  both,  and  that  they  plead  the  authority 
and  example  of  Menno,  their  founder,  for  the  practice.  Dr. 
Wall  says,  in  the  second  volume  of  his  History  of  Infant 
Baptism,  that  the  Mennonites  of  his  day  (about  a  hundred 
years  after  Mr.  John  Smyth  refused  to  be  baptized  by  them) 
baptized  by  pouring  as  well  as  immersion.     Now,  we  know 


^tvtniln  (Bvtixlw^. 


CONTROVERSY   ON   THE   MODE   OF   BAPTISM. 


THE   EVIDENCE   FROM   THE  CLASSICS   AND 
OTHER   SOURCES   REVIEWED. 


MR.   BATTLE   AND   MR.    MASON. 


<^WHEN  GREEK  MEETS   GREEK,   THEN   COMES 
THE  TUG  OF  WAR." 


THE     MADESTY    OF    TRUTH.  321 

that  when  the  Mennonites  come  from  Holland  to  this  conn- 
try,  they  do  not  join  the  Baptists,  but  organize  churches  of 
their  own.  And  I  venture  to  affirm  that  Baptists  will  not 
commune  with  the  Mennonites,  because  they  regard  them  as 
being  quite  as  heretical  on  the  mode  of  baptism  as  any  of 
the  Pedobaptists.^^ 

"Then  the  cause  is  lost,  Mr.  Mason,''  said  Theophilus; 
^^  we  must  give  up  the  ship  '  Succession.'  " 

"  0  !  as  to  that,  Theophilus,  if  we  were  Baptists,  all  that 
we  would  have  to  do  would  be  to  practice  our  imagination  a 
little.  Baptist /t??icy  makes  up  for  the  deficiency  of  histori- 
cal facts.     But  we  are  after  the  truth  now,  not  fiction. 

"  Suffer  me  to  bring  the  whole  argument  before  you.  We 
have  seen,  this  evening,  that  the  corruption  of  the  ordinance 
of  baptism  commenced  about  the  end  of  the  first  or  begin- 
ning of  the  second  century.  This  corruption  was  first  in 
the  design,  then  in  the  mode.  Baptism,  from  being  a  sign 
of  the  Spirit's  operation  upon  the  heart,  was  changed  into 
the  instrument  by  which  the  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  was 
-lone.  Then,  the  birth  of  the  Spirit  required  the  birth  of 
the  body  in  water — the  ivTiolc  body  by  submersion  three 
times,  to  indicate  the  equality  and  cooperation  of  the  three 
persons  of  the  Trinity  in  regeneration.  We  have  seen 
these  two  ideas  of  baptismal  regeneration  and  trine  immer- 
sion progressing  together  until  Eunomius,  in  i\\Q  fourth  cen- 
tury, leaves  off  two  dips,  for  the  purpose  of  rejecting  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  and  equality  of  Persons  in  the 
Godhead.  But  inasmuch  as  this  Arian  teacher  was  a  Pedo- 
baptist,  we  had  to  descend  to  Peter  Bruis,  for  a  better 
example  of  Baptist  teaching.  We  found  him  to  be  a 
heterodox  Baptist,  and  therefore  we  came  down  to  Menno ; 
and  cast  him  aside  because  of  his  Pelagian  ism.  We  found, 
at  last,  the  first  Baptist  church,  according  to  Crosby,  in  the 
British  empire,  founded  in  1633  ;  the  first  foreign  Baptist 
11^ 


322  THEOPHILUS    WALTON. 

cliurch  in  the  world  in  Holland,  in  1608;  and  the  first 
American  Baptist  church  in  1638-9 ;  in  all  three  cases, 
however,  these  original  Baptist  churches,  according  to  their 
own  historians,  originated  their  baptism,  and  thus  palpably 
demonstrate  that  there  were  no  other  churches  of  ^  the  same 
faith  and  order'  in  existence.  So  we  see  that  the  boasts  of 
modern  ^  Landmark'  men  are  all  empty  dreams,  and  ^  bap- 
tismal succession'  is,  as  Mr.  Tustin,  the  Baptist  editor,  says, 
worthy  of  support  from  the  advocates  of  Rome  and  Oxford. 

^'  Before  we  are  dismissed,^'  remarked  Mr.  Mason,  rising 
to  his  feet,  '^  I  would  remark  to  the  audience  that  I  have 
been  requested  to  meet  the  Rev.  Mr.  Battle  here  to-morrow 
night,  on  the  Mode  of  Baptism.  It  will  be  understood, 
then,  that  to-morrow  evening  Mr.  Battle  and  I  will  examine 
the  subject.'' 

The  audience  were  then  dismissed. 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  327 

that  the  word  was  used  in  any  other  than  its  common,  gene- 
ral sense." 

^'Allow  me  to  ask/'-  said  Mr.  Mason,  interrupting  him, 
''if  you  are  going  to  confine  yourself  to  the  Greek  word 
haptidzo  ?  Are  you  going  to  include  hapto  in  your  quota- 
tions from  Greek  writers  ?" 

''Only  so  far.  as  to  show  that  the  derivative,  haptidzo^  is 
used  by  the  Greeks  in  the  same  sense  that  hapto  is.'' 

"  Then  I  understand  you  to  say  that  the  two  words  are 
identical  in  meaning  V^ 

"  Not  exactly  identical,  Mr.  Mason,  but  very  nearly  so." 

"  Well,  if  they  have  not  the  very  same  meaning,  be  so 
good  as  to  tell  us  in  what  the  difference  consists.'' 

"  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  precisely,  Mr.  Mason ;  but  as 
a  general  rule  we  may  say  that  hapto  means  to  dye,  and  hap- 
tidzo to  dip."  ^^ 

"  But  I  desire  you  to  use  precision,  Mr.  Battle,"  replied 
Mr.  Mason  -,  "  I  want  to  know  if  hapto  always  means  to  dye  f 

"  I  suppose  not,  Mr.  Mason,  but  generally  it  does." 

"And  you  say  that  haptidzo  always  means  to  dip  ?" 

"  Yes,  either  literally,  or  in  a  figurative  sense." 

"  Well,  then,  upon  the  supposition  that  a  derivative  always 
partakes  of  the  nature  of  the  word  fromVhich  it  is  derived, 
how  does  it  happen  that  a  word  gets  to  mean  invariably  to 
dip,  from  a  word  that  only  generally  means  to  dye  ?" 

"  Because  dyeing  was  usually  done  by  dipping,"  replied 
Mr.  Battle,  "and  when  the  root,  hapto,  does  not  mean  to 
dye,  it  means  to  dip." 

"  Then  the  root  word  means  more  then  the  derived  word, 
does  it  ?  Bapto  has  two  meanings,  to  dye  and  to  dip.  Are 
these  actions  alvmys  the  same,  Mr.  Battle  ?" 

"  No,  sir,  I  suppose  a  thing  may  be  dyed  without  being 
dipped." 

"  Very  good.     Remember  what  you  told  us  a  few  moments 


328  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

ago,  that  I  would  not  risk  my  reputation  as  a  scholar  by 
affirming  that  a  word  means  three  different  things.  You 
have  just  admitted  that  one  of  these  words  means  two  differ- 
ent things,  and  really,  sir,  i/our  reputation  as  a  scholar  is 
being  placed  in  jeopardy  at  the  very  outset.  As  you  are  so 
well  posted  up  with  authorities,  I  would  turn  your  attention 
to  your  own  Dr.  Fuller,  and  show  you  that  he  charges  men 
with  being  blinded  by  controversy  who  assert  that  a  word 
can  mean  more  than  one  thing,'^ 

^'I  care  not  what  Dr.  Fuller  has  said,'^  replied  Mr.  Battle, 
tartly,  ''/am  here  to  oppose  you — Alexander  Battle,  not  Dr. 
Fuller.     I  pin  my  faith  to  no  man's  skirts.'' 

''Well,  then,  Mr.  Battle/'  replied  Mr.  Mason,  smiling, 
"  all  I  want  to  do  is  to  show  that  Dr.  Fuller  and  Dr.  Alex- 
ander Battle  are  not  agreed  upon  the  most  material  part 
of  this  discussion.  But  I  hope,  sir,  as  you  say  that  you 
'  pin  your  faith  to  no  man's  skirts,'  that  you  will  oblige  us 
this  evening  by  reading  your  quotations  from  Greek  out  of 
Greeh  books,  not  out  of  your  own  writers.  It  might  happen 
that  some  of  the  extracts  may  not  be  quoted  correctly." 

"  If  I  do  not  read  them  out  of  the  original  books,"  re- 
plied Mr.  Battle,  "I  shall  at  all  events  read  them  out  of 
Pedohaptist  writers;  I  suppose  that  will  satisfy  you,  Mr. 
Mason." 

"No,  sir,  I  want  the  original  Greek  books;  and  where 
this  word  occurs,  I  want  the  whole  connection  :  what  the 
writer  was  speaking  about,  to  whom  he  was  speaking,  and 
the  circumstances  by  which  he  was  surrounded,  or  that  of 
right  belong  to  the  case  under  consideration." 

"  I  see  you  are  going  to  be  hard  to  satisfy,"  replied  Mr. 
Battle ;  "  I  have  not  the  Greek  originals,  and  I  doubt  whether 
they  can  all  be  found  in  the  country.  It  is  unfair,  Mr.  Ma- 
sou,  to  make  such  a  demand  as  that." 

"  No,  sir,  it  is  not  unfair.     You  are  mistaken  in  supposing 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  325 


SEVENTH  EVENING 


It  had  been  circulated  through  the  village  and  a  great 
portion  of  the  surrounding  country,  since  Wednesday  morn- 
ing, that  Mr.  Battle  had  invited  Mr.  Mason  to  a  regular 
disputation  on  Friday  evening,  and  that  the  invitation  had 
been  accepted.  In  consequence  of  this  intelligence,  a  large 
number  of  persons,  friends  of  both  parties,  came  to  hear  the 
discussion. 

At  an  early  hour  the  Methodist  church  was  crowded  to 
its  utmost  capacity;  and  when  Mr.  Battle  entered,  with  a 
large  armful  of  books,  accompanied  by  Mr.  Ellis,  who  was 
well-nigh  weighed  down  with  a  similar  load,  it  was  with 
difficulty  that  they  could  make  their  way  through  the  aisle 
to  the  altar.  The  ponderous  volumes  were  at  last  deposited 
upon  the  table,  and  Mr.  Battle  seated  himself  in  the  altar, 
with  a  self-satisfied  air,  as  if  he  felt  sure  of  a  speedy  and 
complete  triumph. 

When  Mr.  Mason  entered  the  room,  he  had  nothing  in  the 
shape  of  a  book  in  his  hands  ;  but  he  did  not  seem  to  be  at 
all  disconcerted  by  the  formidable  collection  of  Mr.  Battle. 

"  It  seems  that  you  are  going  to  bring  in  ^  the  authorities' 
this  evening,'^  Mr.  Mason  whispered  to  his  opponent. 

^^  0,  as  to  that,  these  are  not  a  tenth  of  the  number  I 
might  bring,''  replied  Mr.  Battle ;  '^  I  can  furnish  you  with 
a  hundred  volumes  if  you  require  them." 


326  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

^^  Very  well/'  said  Mr.  Mason ;  "  if  tliey  are  pertinent  to 
tlie  matter  in  hand,  it  is  all  right."  Beckoning  to  Theophi- 
lus  to  assist  him,  Mr.  Mason  went  to  the  pulpit,  and  removed 
a  case  of  books,  which  seemed  to  be  a  section  of  'a  library, 
and  apparently  contained  some  forty  or  fifty  volumes. 
Whilst  they  were  placing  it  in  a  convenient  position,  the 
Baptist  minister  eyed  the  bookcase  with  evident  interest. 
When  the  hour  arrived  for  the  debate  to  commence,  Mr. 
Battle  arose,  and  with  great  deliberation  remarked  : 

"  We  are  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  manifest  import- 
ance to  all  classes  of  men.  The  performance  of  a  duty  com- 
manded by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  is  not  a  question  for 
debate.  My  friend,  Mr.  Mason,  will  not  for  a  moment  ven- 
ture a  doubt  as  to  the  binding  force  of  all  our  Lord's  com- 
mandments. The  point  at  issue  between  us  is,  ivhaf  has 
Jesus  Christ  commanded  when  he  bids  us  to  be  baptized. 
My  position  is,  that  if  the  word  used  by  our  Saviour,  and 
written  by  the  evangelists,  means  to  pour,  then  pouring  is 
what  is  commanded ;  if  it  means  to  sprinkle,  then  sprink- 
ling is  commanded ;  and  if  it  means  to  dip,  then  dipping  is 
commanded.  I  presume  that  Mr.  Mason  will  not  risk  his 
reputation  for  scholarship  by  saying  that  the  word  means  all 
three  of  these  contradictory  and  entirely  different  actions. 
But  it  is  not  my  purpose  to  alter  the  method  which  he  has 
been  pursuing  for  several  evenings  here;  I  intend  to  con- 
duct this  discussion  in  pretty  much  the  same  form.  I  will 
give  a  passage  from  the  Greek  classics,  and  allow  him  to 
admit  or  deny  its  bearing  upon  the  subject.  If  he  admits 
that  it  defines  the  word  as  an  act  of  dipping,  then  the  pas- 
sage is  mine.  And  if  I  bring  up  an  overwhelming  number 
of  these  passages,  proving  that  this  was  the  general,  primary, 
and  common  meaning  of  the  word  haptidzo,  then  I  establish 
the  fact  that  Jesus  Christ,  in  commanding  us  to  be  bap- 
tized, commands  us  to  be  dipped ;  for  it  is  folly  to  suppose 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  329 

that  the  books  are  not  to  be  found.  I  believe  I  have  every 
volume  in  Grreek  that  has  been  quoted  on  either  side  of  this 
controversy.  The  majority  of  them  are  in  this  bookcase, 
comprising  writers  from  Homer  down  to  Diogenes  Laertius, 
and  also  several  volumes  of  the  Greek  fathers.  I  insist, 
then,  Mr.  Battle,  upon  your  quoting  directly  from  the  books.'' 
'^  I  was  not  aware  that  you  had  so  many  of  these  authors,'' 
replied  Mr.  Battle,  "  and  if  I  had  known  it  this  morning,  I 
could  have  arranged  my  notes  so  as  to  refer  directly  to  the 
Greek.  However,  Mr.  Mason,  I  will  make  the  request  of 
you,  and  rely  upon  your  courtesy  to  grant  it,  that  for  this 
evening  I  may  be  allowed  to  use  Dr.  Carson's  collection.  I 
apprehend  that  no  objection  will  be  found  to  them,  and  if 
any  discrepancy  should  be  discovered,  we  can  then  refer  to 
the  originals." 

"  Very  well,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  "  I  like  to  go  to  the 
fountain-head  when  I  have  to  rely  upon  testimony,  and 
therefore  I  would  prefer  the  course  I  have  indicated ;  but  as 
you  have  not  prepared  yourself  for  it,  I  will  not  insist." 

^'  I  have  already  stated,"  Mr.  Battle  resumed,  "  that  I  can 
prove  that  the  plain,  literal  sense  of  haptidzo  is  to  dip,  or 
immerse,  and  that  if  I  can  establish  that  fact,  then  I  prove 
that  Jesus  Christ  commanded  immersion.  The  first  writer 
which  I  shall  bring  forward  is  Polybius,  as  quoted  by  Dr. 
Carson.  He  says  that  'certain  soldiers,  passing  through 
water,  were  immersed  up  to  the  hreast.'  That  is,  they  were 
ha.ptized  up  to  the  breast.  What  have  you  to  say  to  that 
passage,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

''  I  say,  sir,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  '^  that  those  soldiers  were 
not  dipped  in  the  water,  but  that  they  waded  through  it, 
and  they  were  surrounded  by  the  water.  There  is  a  partial 
immersion,  but  no  dipping  in  the  passage.  '  I  will,  however, 
for  the  present,  give  you  a  passage  from  an  older  writer  by 
more  than  two  hundred  years.     I  have  in  my  hand  the  Eu- 


830  TIIEOPIIILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

tliydemus  of  Plato.  It  is  a  dialogue  between  several  per- 
sons, among  tliem  a  youth,  who  has  been  entrapped  by  a 
number  of  shrewd  questions  into  many  inconsistencies.  So- 
crates, who  relates  the  dialogue,  says :  'After  this  Euthy- 
demus  rushed  to  the  third,  as  it  were  wrestler-fall,  being 
about  to  throw  down  the  youth.  But  I,  seeing  the  boy  over- 
ivliehned,  (or  haptized,^  and  wishing  to  give  him  a  respite, 
lest  he  should  exhibit  cowardice  before  us,  said,  in  order  to 
console  him.  Do  not  wonder,  Clinias,  if  these  discourses  ap- 
pear to  you  to  be  unusual.'  Now,  Mr.  Battle,  would  you  say 
that  this  boy  was  dipped  or  immersed  in  the  questions  V 

'■'■  I  should  say,''  replied  Mr.  Battle  slowly,  '^  that  he 
might  be  said  j&guratively  to  be  immersed  in  questions." 

'^  But  you  forget,  Mr.  Battle,  that  the  questions  were  asked 
him  one  at  a  time.  Is  it  not  as  proper  to  say  that  the  ques- 
tions were  p)oured  out  upon  him  one  after  the  other,  until  he 
was  overwhelmed?  Is  not  this  the  fact?  And  if  he  may 
be  said  to  sink  under  the  questions,  yet  they  were  applied  to 
him,  not  he  to  them.  But  Socrates  does  not  use  the  word 
figuratively  ;  he  says  that  the  boy  was  really,  literally  over- 
lohelmed  with  questions." 

"  I  have  not  examined  that  passage  closely,"  said  Mr. 
Battle;  "for  the  present  I  will  let  it  pass,  and  go  on  to  give 
my  proofs.  *  Plutarch,  speaking  of  a  Boman  general  dying 
of  his  wounds,  says,  that  having  dipped,  his  hand  in  blood, 
he  wrote  the  inscription  for  a  trophy.'  Now  we  know  that 
the  instrument  with  which  we  write  is  literally  dipped  in 
the  ink.  This  Roman  general  dipped  his  hand  in  blood,  and 
wrote  :  here  is  evidently  a  case  of  immersion." 

"  I  am  not  disposed  to  cavil,"  replied  Mr.  Mason,  '^  and 
therefore  I  will  allow  that  the  hand  was  truly  dipped  in  the 
blood,  although  I  think,  from  all  the  circumstances,  it  is  very 
doubtful.  As  you  have  brought  your  testimony  down  to 
Plutarch,  I  think  you  are  getting  out  of  the  path.     You  are 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  331 

aware  tliat  Pliitarcli  lived  a  hundred  years  after  Christy  and 
therefore  his  testimony  is  worth  nothing  as  to  the  meaning 
of  the  word  when  used  by  our  Saviour.  We  ought  to  seek 
evidence  from  he/ore,  not  after  the  time  of  Christ.  How- 
ever, I  will  give  you  a  passage  from  another  old  writer, 
more  than  three  hundred  years  before  Christ.  Aristotle,  in 
this  work,  De  Mirabilibus,  says  :  '  They  say  that  the  Phoeni- 
cians, who  inhabit  the  parts  called  Gradeira,  (Cadiz,)  sailing 
beyond  the  Pillars  of  Hercules,  with  an  east  wind,  reached 
in  four  days  certain  uninhabited  coasts  full  of  sea-weed, 
which  were  not  baptized  at  ebb,  but  at  full  tide  were  de- 
luged.' Now  here  is  a  case  in  which  the  thing  baptized  is 
not  put  into  the  water,  but  the  water  comes  over  it.  Every 
one  knows  how  the  tide  rises  and  overflows  the  beach :  the 
water  comes  to  the  land,  and  flows  over  it.'' 

''But  yet,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Mr.  Battle,  "although  the 
land  was  not  literally  dipped  into  the  water,  yet  when  the 
tide  was  high  it  was  said  to  be  baptized,  or  immersed.  I 
think  the  passage  clearly  in  my  favor." 

"And  I  think  it  as  clearly  in  mine,"  replied  Mr.  Mason; 
"  for  the  question  is  not  whether  the  laud  was  covered  with 
water,  but  Jiow  was  it  covered — by  dipping  the  land  into  the 
water,  or  by  the  water  rising  and  flowing  upon  the  land  ?  It 
is  the  action  in  the  word  haptidzo  which  you  contend  for, 
the  mode  by  which  the  thing  is  done.  If  you  abandon  this 
position,  you  place  yourself  in  direct  antagonism  with  Dr. 
Carson,  who  says  the  word  always  and  everywhere  means 
mode,  either  literally  or  figuratively." 

"  I  think  it  must  be  used  figuratively  in  this  passage," 
said  Mr.  Battle;  "the  gradual  disappearing  of  the  land 
from  sight  would  resemble  the  dipping  or  sinking  of  it  in 
the  water,  and  I  regard  the  figure  as  a  very  beautiful  one." 

"No  doubt  you  do,"  said  Mr.  Mason,  "  for  all  figures  are 
beautiful  that  will  come  to  your  aid  in  a  moment  of  distress. 


332 


OR, 


and  help  you  out  of  trouble.  But,  unfortunately  for  you, 
there  is  no  figure  in  the  case.  It  was  a  literal  coast,  there 
were  literal  waves,  and  a  literal  covering  of  the  coasts  by  the 
water,  and  yet  you  tell  us  that  the  mode  by  which  the  coasts 
were  bajDtized  was  figurative  !  Do,  sir,  if  you  wish  to  pre- 
serve your  ^  reputation  as  a  scholar,^  abandon  such  an  inter- 
pretation, and  admit,  candidly,  that  the  water  was  applied 
to  or  flowed  over  the  land,  and  that  this  application  of  water 
to  the  coasts,  or  flowing  of  the  waves  over  them,  constituted 
the  mode  by  which  they  were  baptized.  A  figurative  mode 
of  doing  a  literal  act  is  too  great  an  imposition  upon  the 
laws  of  language.'^ 

'  ''  Well,  Mr.  Mason,"  replied  Mr.  Battle,  '^  we  will  not 
dispute  about  that  passage.  Here  is  one  from  Diodorus 
Siculus.  Speaking  of  the  sinking  of  animals  in  water,  he 
says  that  when  the  water  overflows,  ^  many  of  the  land  ani- 
mals, immersed  in  the  river,  perish.'  Here,  then,  we  have 
the  plunging  or  immersing  of  animals  into  a  river,  and, 
sinking  into  the  water,  they  perish.  If  this  is  not  a  clear 
case,  then  argument  will  not  convince  you.'' 

^'  Stop,  Mr.  Battle ;  you  are  getting  three  hundred  years 
after  the  time  of  Christ,  whereas  we  were  to  prove  what  the 
meaning  of  the  word  was  when  our  Saviour  used  it.  But 
let  that  pass.  Now,  Mr.  Battle,"  continued  Mr.  Mason,  ''  I 
have  in  my  hand  the  History  of  Diodorus  Siculus,  from 
which  your  extract  is  taken,  and  here,  sir,  you  will  see  that 
there  is  not  one  word  about  the  im,m,ersion  of  these  animals 
in  the  river!  Your  author.  Dr.  Carson,  has  mistranslated 
the  passage.  The  proper  rendering  is  :  '  The  greater  num- 
ber of  the  land  animals,  overtaken  by  the  river,  perish,  being 
baptized.'  Now,  sir,  you  see  that  the  water  of  the  river 
overtook  or  flowed  upon  the  animals,  and  they,  being  baptized 
by  this  sudden  rush  of  the  water  upon  them,  perished.  So 
we  have  here  another  example  of  the  water  being  applied  to 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  333 

the  tiling  baptized.  You  must  hand  this  passage  over  to 
me,  sir.  You  cannot  get  dip  out  of  it  ]  no,  not  even  by  the 
help  of  a  figure!" 

"Are  you  positive  that  your  translation  is  right,  Mr. 
Mason  V  asked  Mr.  Battle.  ''  I  have  never  heard  the  cor- 
rectness of  Carson's  rendering  questioned  before.'' 

"  Perhaps  you  have  not,  Mr.  Battle,  but  I  will  agree  to 
leave  it  to  any  Grreek  scholar  in  the  house.  Will  you  refer 
it?'' 

"I  will  not  question  your  translation,  Mr.  Mason,"  replied 
Mr.  Battle,  "  if  you  are  positive  that  you  are  right." ' 

"I  am  certainly  positive,  sir,  and  to  show  you  that  this 
same  writer  Diodorus  uses  the  word  haptidzo  in  the  sense  of 
water  applied  to  a  person  or  thing,  I  will  give  you  another 
example.  In  the  second  volume  of  his  History,  he  says : 
'  Tke  river,  flowing  down  with  a  more  violent  current,  bap- 
tized many,  and  destroyed  them  swimming  across  in  their 
armor.'  Now  these  soldiers  had  already  been  forced  into  the 
river  by  their  conquerors,  and  the  violent  current,  flowing 
over  them,  baptized  or  overwhelnied  them.  The  conquerors 
dipped  the  soldiers,  but  the  current  baptized  them.  This  is 
a  highly  important  passage,  as  it  clearly  distinguishes  the  act 
of  forcing  or  driving  into  the  river,  from  the  act  of  haptiz- 
ing  after  they  were  in  the  water.  No  figure  of  speech  can 
be  introduced  here  to  break  the  force  of  the  language.  It 
was  the  flowing  of  the  water  over  the  soldiers  that  baptized 
them,  not  the  plunging  into  the  water." 

"  I  am  not  prepared  to  examine  that  passage  now,"  ob- 
served Mr.  Battle,  ''  as  I  have  never  seen  it,  or  heard  it  pro- 
duced before  this  evening.  I  will  go  on,  and  produce  an 
example  which  will  not  be  questioned.  '  Heraclides  Ponti- 
cus,'  says  Dr.  Gale,  '  a  disciple  of  Aristotle,  moralizing  the 
fable  of  Mars  being  taken  by  Vulcan,  says :  Neptune  is 
ingeniously  supposed  to  deliver  Mars  from  Vulcan,  to  signify 


334  TIIEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

that  when  a  piece  of  iron  is  taken  red-hot  out  of  the  fire, 
and  put  into  the  ivater,  (baptized,)  the  heat  is  repelled 
and  extinguished  by  the  contrary  nature  of  water/  Now, 
Mr.  Mason,  we  know  how  hot  iron  is  taken  from  the  forg-e 
and  put  into  water — it  is  dipped^  and  this  dipping  is  called 
by  this  writer  a  baptizing.     What  do  you  say  to  that  V 

''  I  have  several  things  to  say  to  it/'  replied  Mr.  Mason, 
'^  for  I  have  the  original  Greek  here,  and  I  must  charge  that 
translation  of  Dr.  Gale  with  great  inaccuracy.  The  proper 
rendering  is  as  follows  :  '  For  a  mass  of  iron,  heated  to  red- 
ness, being  drawn  out  by  the  smiths,  is  baptized  with  loater, 
and  that  which  was  fiery  by  its  own  nature,  being  quenched 
icith  ivater,  ceases  to  be  so.'  Now,  if  this  writer  used  bap- 
tidzo  to  express  the  plunging  into  water  of  the  iron,  why 
did  he  not  say  it  was  baptized  eis  to  hudor,  {elg  to  vdiop,) 
instead  of  using  the  dative  of  instrument  ^  The  Greek  is 
vdart  (iauTi^erai,  lindati  baptidzetai^  baptized  loitli  water, 
just  as  v6ari  KaTao[3eod^v,  Imdati  katasbestheji,  quenched 
with  water.  Now  the  conclusion  of  the  Baptists,  that  because 
small  pieces  of  iron,  when  heated  in  a  forge,  are  plunged  in 
water  to  cool  them,  there/ore  there  is  no  other  mode  by  which 
heated  iron  can  be  cooled,  is  perfectly  absurd.  The  pouring 
of  water  upon  the  '  mass  of  iron'  would  have  been  j  ust  as 
efi"ectual  as  dipping,  and  the  fact  that  the  construction  of  the 
Greek  text  requires  us  to  render  it  baptized  with  water,  indi- 
cates the  application  of  the  water  to  the  iron,  as  the  instru- 
ment by  which  it  was  cooled.  You  cannot  rely  upon  this 
passage,  Mr.  Battle." 

^'  Well,  sir,"  replied  the  Baptist  minister,  rather  haughtily, 
"  I  will  try  again.  Perhaps  I  may  at  last  find  a  case  that 
.will  baffle  your  skill  in  petty  criticism." 

'^  I  have  made  no  '  petty  criticism,'  Mr.  Battle,"  said  the 
Methodist  minister;  ''I  am  willing  to  submit  every  excep- 
tion I  have  taken  to  your  proofs,  and  every  criticism  I  have 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  335 

made,  to  a  committee  of  competent  Greek  scholars,  and  I 
will  abide  by  their  decision." 

''  We  will  determine  that  by  and  by,"  replied  Mr.  Battle. 
^'  Now,  sir,  let  us  see  what  you  will  do  with  this  passage  : 
Two  Greek  critics  are  quoted  by  Dr.  Gale  as  applying  the 
word  in  exhibiting  the  beauty  of  Homer's  representation  of 
the  death  of  one  of  his  heroes  :  ^  He  struck  him  across  the 
neck  with  his  heavy  sword,  and  the  whole  sword  became 
warm  with  blood. ^  On  this  Pseudo  Didymus  says,  that  the 
sword  is  represented  as  dipped  in  blood.  And  Dionysius- 
says  :  '  In  that  phrase  Homer  expresses  himself  with  the 
greatest  energy,  signifying  that  the  sword  was  so  dipped  in 
Mood,  that  it  was  even  heated  by  it.'  Now,  Mr.  Mason,  what 
objection  have  you  got  to  this  passage  ?" 

''I  have  more  than  one  objection,"  replied  Mr.  Mason. 
^^In  the  first  place,  you  can  neither  dip  nor  iminerse  diheavy 
sword  in  a  man's  neck.  In  the  next  place,  if  this  could  be 
done,  your  translator  says  it  was  dipped  in  blood,  not  in  the 
nech  of  the  hero.  But  my  principal  objection  to  this 
passage  of  yours  is,  that  there  is  not  a  word  about  dipjying 
'in  hlood  in  the  original.  Dionysius  of  Halicarnassus  is  the 
author  alluded  to,  who  in  his  Life  of  Homer  comments  on 
that  passage  in  the  sixteenth  book  of  the  Iliad,  which 
describes  the  death  of  Cleobulus.  Homer  says  :  '  He  (Ajax) 
struck  him  on  the  neck  with  his  hilted  sword,  a^id  the  ivhole 
sword  ivas  wai^med  with  hlood.'  On  this  last  clause  Diony- 
sius remarks  :  '  In  this  he  expresses  greater  emphasis,  as,  tlte 
sword  being  so  baptized  as  to  be  even  warmed.'  Not  a  word 
is  here  about  dipping  in  bloody  for  the  sword  was  baptized 
by  the  blood  running  out  up)on  it.  We  have  another  bap- 
tism, then,  without  an  immersion  !" 

"It  seems,  then,"  said  Mr.  Battle,  "that  I  am  only  fur- 
nishing you  passages  to  be  explained  away.  As  you  seem  to 
like  the  amusement,  I  will  give  you  a  few  more.     Josephus, 


336  THEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

describing  the  death  of  one  Simon  by  his  own  hand,  says : 
^  He  baptized  or  plunged  his  sword  up  to  the  hilt  into  his 
own  bowels/  Now,  my  learned  friend,  what  will  you  do 
with  that  ?" 

^'I  will  prove  that  Josephus  says  no  such  thing,"  replied 
Mr.  Mason.  ^'  The  passage  is  in  the  Wars  of  the  J  ews, 
book  second,  section  4  of  the  eighteenth  chapter.  After 
stating  that  Simon  destroyed  'his  mother  and  friends,  he 
adds  :  ^  He  haptized  his  sword  to  his  own  slaughter/  Dr. 
Carson  mistook  cr^ay?/!^,  sphagen,  slaughter,  for  GnXdyx^a, 
howels.  But  admitting  that  the  baptism  here  was  put- 
ting the  sword  into  his  body,  it  is  not  a  case  of  dipping  or 
immersion.  It  is  a  case  of  plunging,  in  which  a  few  inches 
only  of  the  sword  entered  the  body." 

"  I  am  at  a  loss  to  proceed  any  farther,"  said  Mr.  Battle. 
^'  I  cannot  adduce  a  passage  which,  by  a  system  of  critical 
torture,, you  do  not  destroy.  If  I  had  been  forewarned  of 
this  course,  I  would  not  have  met  you  here  to-night." 

''  Why,  my  friend,"  said  Mr.  Mason,  "if  I  have  done  any 
violence  to  your  quotations  from  the  classics,  why  do  you  not 
show  it  ?  Here  we  are,  ready  to  hear  any  thing  you  have  to 
say  upon  the  subject.  Here  are  the  books,  the  Greek  books; 
the  places  are  all  marked  and  ready  for  easy  reference;  and, 
as  you  remarked  to  me  in  your  note  last  Wednesday  morn- 
ing, '  when  Greek  meets  Greek,  then  comes  the  tug  of  war !' 
If  I  have  misrepresented  any  thing,  show  me  wherein  I  have 
done  so,  and  I  am  ready  to  retrieve  my  error." 

"  You  have  taken  advantage  of  me,"  replied  Mr.  Battle, 
harshly;  "you  have  been  preparing  to  torture  my  proof-texts, 
knowing  that  I  could  not,  at  this  hour,  set  them  right.  Your 
course,  sir,  is  highly  discreditable." 

"  I  am  surprised  at  you,  Mr.  Battle,"  said  Mr.  Mason. 
"  I  again  say,  that  if  I  have  misrepresented  any  one  of  these 
passages,  show  me  where  the  misrepresentation  is,  and  I  will 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  337 

correct  it.  And  more  than  that,  sir,  I  am  willing  to  let  you 
select  any  three  men  in  the  house,  regardless  of  denomina- 
tional ties,  to  whom  the  criticisms  offered  this  evening  shall 
be  referred,  and  if  they  decide  that  I  have  no  ground  for 
them,  or  that  my  criticisms  are  false,  I  will  throw  them  out.'' 

Mr.  Battle  made  no  answer  for  several  moments.  He  was 
evidently  perplexed,  and  seemed  to  be  in  doubt  whether  he 
should  go  on,  or  endeavor  to  retreat  under  cover  of  an  excuse 
which  would  save  him  from  disgrace.  Mr.  Ellis,  who,  dur- 
ing the  progress  of  the  discussion,  had  manifested  consider- 
able uneasiness,  advanced  to  the  altar,  and  commenced 
whispering  to  Mr.  Battle.  After  a  few  moments  spent  in 
consultation,  Mr.  Battle  remarked  : 

^^  I  cannot  consent,  ladies  and  gentlemen,  to  permit  Mr. 
Mason  to  handle  my  proofs  in  the  way  he  has  been  doing 
to-night.  He  has  violated  the  rules  of  the  Greek  language 
and  every  principle  of  construction.  In  order  to  show  this 
to  be  true,  however,  I  must  have  several  books  which  are 
not  here,  and  as  they  are  in  my  library  at  honie,  it  is  not 
likely  that  I  shall  be  able  to  command  them  before  the  mid- 
dle of  next  week.  I  beg  you  to  suspend  your  judgment  in 
this  matter  until  I  shall  receive  the  necessary  authorities. 
I  will  then  prove  how  recklessly  we  have  heard  the  Grreek 
language  tortured  tonight.  I  did  not  suspect  my  antagonist 
of  this  artifice,  and  therefore  have  not  guarded  against  it. 
At  another  time,  I  pledge  myself  to  set  every  thing  right.'' 

At  the  conclusion  of  this  speech,  Mr.  Battle  and  Mr.  Ellis 
gathered  up  their  books  and  prepared  to  depart.  Mr.  Mason 
rose  and  endeavored  to  obtain  a  hearing,  but  there  was  so 
much  confusion  in  the  house,  that  the  two  Baptist  ministers 
had  left  the  church,  together  with  a  number  of  their  friends, 
before  order  could  be  restored.  When  the  noise  and  uproar 
subsided,  however,  it  appeared  that  nine-tenths  of  the 
audience  remained,  and  when  Mr.  Mason  commenced  speak- 
16 


338  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

ing,  there  was  an  audible  indication  of  applause  throughout 
the  building. 

^^It  is  to  be  regretted/^  said  Mr.  Mason,  ^Hhat  when 
Christian  ministers  become  parties  to  a  controversy,  they 
should  forget  the  courtesy  due  to  each  other,  and  display  a 
spirit  wholly  at  war  with  the  teacliings  of  the  gospel.  Now, 
I  call  you  to  witness  that  I  have  not  uttered  a  word  this 
evening  that  was  either  uncourteous  or  unkind  toward  Mr. 
Battle.  On  the  contrary,  having  some  apprehension  of  his 
hasty  temper,  I  have  been  quite  calm  and  respectful.  Now 
wherein  have  I  offended  ?  If  it  be  a  crime  to  bring  up  a 
number  of  Grreek  books,  as  authorities,  when  I  am  challenged 
to  a  controversy  in  G-reek,  then  I  am  wrong.  If  it  be  wrong  to 
point  out  the  errors  of  those  who  oppose  me,  then  I  have  com- 
mitted an  offence.  But  I  have  offered  to  submit  to  the  judg- 
ment of  competent  scholars  every  point  at  issue  to-night, 
and  my  opponent  would  not  condescend  even  to  notice  my 
proposal !" 

^'  It  is  v6ry  clear,'^  observed  Theophilus,  "  that  you  have 
taken  Mr.  Battle  by  surprise.  He  did  not  expect  to  have 
his  translations  questioned,  that  is,  the  translations  of  his 
Baptist  doctors ;  for,  to  tell  you  the  truth,  I  think  the  gen- 
tleman saw  some  of  those  books  for  the  first  time  to-night. 
His  Greek,  I  imagine,  was  never  very  extensive,  and  it  has 
grown  7'usf)/." 

"  If  he  is  not  prepared  to  conduct  a  Greek  argument,  he 
ought  not  to  invite  others  to  meet  him,  especially  when  he 
heads  his  note  with  the  significant  phrase,  ^  When  Greek 
meets  Greek,  then  comes  the  tug  of  war !'  " 

^'  That  was  an  empty  boast,  Mr.  Mason.  He  only 
designed  to  read  his  proofs  from  his  Baptist  authors,  and 
found  the  argument  upon  them.  Whether  Dr.  Gale  and  Dr. 
Carson  are  reliable  as  translators,  has  never  for  a  moment 
been  a  question  in  his  mind.     But  why  do  we  spend  words 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  339 

upon  him  ?  He  is  gone,  and  I  warrant  you  tliat  lie  will 
never  find  those  books  whicli  are  at  home  in  his  library. 
That  was  only  a  get-oflf.  He  is  a  retired  controversialist,  in 
this  region  at  least,  from  this  time  forth.  But  I  am  inter- 
ested in  these  quotations  from  the  classics,  and,  if  you  will 
permit  me  to  do  so,  I  would  like  to  call  your  attention  to 
several  which  are  quoted  by  the  Baptists." 

^^  I  shall  take  pleasure  in  giving  you  all  the  assistance  in 
oy  power,'^  replied  Mr.  Mason ;  '*  select  any  passage  you 
please,  and  let  us  examine  it." 

"  I  notice  a  very  singular  criticism,  it  seems  to  me,  in  Dr. 
Carson's  work  on  Baptism.  Bemarking  upon  the  sybilline 
verse,  which  he  translates,  ^  Thou  mayest  be  dij^ped,  0 
bladder,  but  are  not  fated  to  sink,'  he  says :  ^  The  expres- 
sion in  this  verse  is  allegorical,  literally  referring  to  a  blad- 
der or  leathern  bottle,  which,  when  empty,  swims  on  the 
surface;  if  sufficiently  filled,  will  dip,  but  will  not  sink. 
In  this  view  it  asserts  that  the  Athenian  state,  though  it 
might  be  occasionally  overwhelmed  with  calamities,  yet 
would  never  perish.'  Now,  it  seems  to  me,"  continued 
Theophilus,  "  that  there  is  something  wrong  in  this  expla- 
nation, and  I  would  be  glad  if  you  would  set  it  right." 

^'  This  passage  offers  a  good  opportunity  to  remark, 
Theophilus,  that  Baptist  critics  always  put  the  disputed 
word  into  the  translation,  and  then  argue  as  if  they  were 
defending  the  Greek  writer  for  using  it.  Dr.  Carson  says 
the  bladder  would  be  dipped ;  but  the  oracle  says  it  would 
be  baptized,  but  should  not  sink.  You  will  remember, 
Theophilus,  that  this  verse  was  understood  by  the  ancient 
Greeks  to  apply  to  the  city  of  Athens,  and  it  was  considered 
to  be  a  prophecy  in  regard  to  her  future  destiny.  The  oracle, 
as  quoted  by  Plutarch,  says  :  ^As  a  bladder,  thou  mayest  be 
baptized,  but  art  not  fated  to  sinh.^  Now  the  words  placed 
in  opposition  here  are  (3anTL^'q,  bap)tidze,  and  Svvai,  dunai, 


340  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

in  Greek;  hcqjtize  and  sink  in  English.  The  image  is  a 
very  striking  one.  The  bladder  or  empty  ^  leathern  bottle'  is 
thrown  into  the  sea,  and  swims  upon  the  surface.  Now, 
says  Dr.  Carson,  if  sufficiently  filled^  it  will  tZ«p,  But  there 
is  an  ^  if^  in  the  way.  Where  does  Dr.  Carson  find  that  this 
bladder  was  to  be  '  sufficiently  filled'  before  it  was  thrown 
into  the  water  ?  And  if  it  began  to  fill  after  it  got  into  the 
water,  who  does  not  see  that  it  would  infallibly  sink,  and 
thus  destroy  the  prophecy  ?  The  same  means  which  filled 
it  '  sufiiciently'  for  Dr.  Carson's  purpose,  would  fill  it  too 
full,  and  send  it  to  the  bottom,  in  spite  of  all  the  Baptist 
rhetoric  in  Christendom.  Baptist  writers  seem  never  to 
hesitate  in  extorting  their  favorite  dip  by  any  process,  be  it 
plausible  or  monstrous.  Now,  Thcophilus,  you  know  that 
dvvG),  duno,  in  Greek,  is  the  root  of  dvTTTCJ,  dupto,  to  dip. 
If  di})  is  not  in  the  root,  it  cannot  be  in  the  derivative — so 
Baptist  writers  tell  us — and  Dr.  Fuller  says  a  word  has  but 
one  meaning ;  then  duno  means  to  dip.  We  have,  then,  in 
this  verse  the  following  nonsense,  according  to  the  conjoint 
opinions  of  Carson  and  Fuller : 

"  '  Thou  may  est  be  di_pped,  0  bladder,  but  art  not  fated  to  dip  P 

^'  But  the  beauty  of  the  passage  is  destroyed  by  the  van- 
dalism of  these  Baptist  critics.  The  oracle  intends  simply 
to  say,  that  as  a  bladder  or  sealed  bottle  will  ride  upon  the 
water,  and  be  baptized  by  the  waves  breaking  over  it,  yet 
without  sinking  below  the  surface,  so  the  city  of  Athens 
should  outride  those  political  storms  whose  waves  should 
break  over  her,  and  baptize  her  for  a  season  with  troubles, 
yet  without  sinking  or  destroying  her  institutions.  The 
same  specific  gravity  which  would  dip  a  bladder  would  sinh 
it ;  and,  as  we  are  told  that  it  will  not  sinh,  it  follows  that  it 
will  not  dip;  and  hence  we  find  another  case  of  baptism 
without  either  dipping  or  immersion." 


TUE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  341 

^'  That  removes  my  difficulty/'  said  Theopliilus ;  ''  I  could 
not  see  the  force  of  the  image  as  the  Baptists  explain  it ; 
but  you  have  rendered  it  plain  and  intelligible." 

'^  There  is  another  fact  connected  with  Dr.  Carson's  aro-u- 
ment  which  is  frequently  overlooked/'  continued  Mr. 
Mason.  ^^  You  know  he  sets  out  with  the  assertion  that 
lainidzo  means  'to  dip,  and  nothing  but  dip  f  yet,  strange 
to  tell,  when  he  introduces  upwards  of  thirty  examples  from 
the  Greek  classics,  he  does  not  translate  the  icord  to  dip  in 
hut  four  instances  out  of  thirty  !  He  has  haptize  thirteen 
times,  plunge  three  times,  immerse  four  times,  and  sink  six 
times;  here  are  twenty-six  cases  in  which  Dr.  Carson  him- 
self leaves  out  the  dip,  and  substitutes  other  words,  and 
that,  too,  whilst  constantly  affirming  that  dip  was  its  only 
meaning.  Nothing  can  be  plainer,  then,  than  that  this  Bap- 
tist doctor,  in  his  Quixotic  expedition,  in  which  he  avows 
his  purpose  to  set  the  lexicons  and  commentators  right,  has 
had  a  terrible  fight  with  the  windmills  and  wine-bags  of  the 
Spanish  knight.  He  sees  an  army  in  a  flock  of  sheep, 
raises  his  lance,  and  cries  out  ^Dip!'  but  when  he  finds 
himself  unhorsed,  his  dip  has  vanished,  and  his  beloved 
Kosinante  is  in  a  pitiable  plight. 

"  It  has  been  wisely  omitted,  too,  by  the  Baptist  critics, 
that  Hippocrates,  the  father  of  medicine,  uses  the  word 
f^dTTTG),  hapto,  in  the  sense  of  dipping,  nearly  one  hundred 
and  fifty  times ;  whilst  he  never  uses  jSarTrl^G),  hapjtidzo,  in 
the  sense  of  mode  but  once,  and  that  passage  is  disputed  as 
spurious  by  able  critics.  How  can  we  account  for  this  fact, 
if,  as  Dr.  Gale  says,  the  two  words  are  identical  in  meaning  ? 
And  how  can  we  account  for  the  use  of  hapto,  to  dip,  if,  as 
Dr.  Fuller  says,  it  only  means  to  dye?  Yerily,  the  more 
we  look  after  those  Baptist  doctors,  and  follow  them  through 
their  learned  lucubrations,  the  more  their  ^confusion 
becomes  worse  confounded  /  and  yet  we  are  told,  with  strong 


342  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

emphasis  and  great  confidence^  that  the  classic  writers  sus- 
tain the  Baptists.'' 

^'  Now  that  we  are  upon  the  subject  of  classic  usage,  Mr. 
Mason/'  said  Theophilus,  ''  I  would  like  to  know  something 
about  the  ancient  jnode  of  hathing.  The  Baptists  insist 
that  it  was  always  an  immersion  of  the  body  in  water.  I 
feel  considerable  interest  in  ascertaining  whether  this  be 
true  or  not )  because,  if  so,  the  Greek  word  Xovu),  louo,  which 
is  rendered  equivalent  to  baptize  in  some  places  in  the  Bible, 
(as,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  Naaman,  in  2  Kings,)  would 
seem  to  indicate  immersion." 

'^  I  am  happy  to  tell  you,  Theophilus,  that  there  is  a  Grreek 
passage  which  will  give  you  perfect  satisfaction  upon  this 
subject.  By  turning  to  the  tenth  book  of  the  Odyssey,  you 
will  find  a  description  of  the  hath  administered  to  Ulysses 
in  the  palace  of  Circe.  Let  me  read  a  paragraph  for 
you: 

^'  'And  four  handmaidens,  who  are  her  servants  in  the 
house,  were  busy  in  the  palace.  But  they  indeed  were 
sprung  from  the  fountains  and  from  the  groves,  and  from 
the  sacred  rivers  which  flow  forth  into  the  sea.  One  of 
them  threw  beautiful  blankets  upon  the  thrones,  purple 
above,  but  under  she  put  beautiful  linen ;  another  extended 
silver  tables  before  the  thrones,  and  set  upon  them  golden 
dishes )  a  third  mixed  sweet  honeyed  wine  in  a  silver  bowl, 
and  distributed  golden  cups ;  but  the  fourth  carried  icater, 
and  lighted  a  great  fire  under  a  large  tripod ;  and  the  water 
was  warmed.  But  when  the  water  boiled  in  the  shining 
brass,  having  put  me  in  a  hath,  she  washed  me  from  the 
large  tripod,  pouring  water  pleasantly  over  my  head  and 
shoulders,  until  she  took  away  from  my  limbs  mind-destroy- 
ing labor.'     Odyssey,  b.  10. 

''Here  is  an  ancient  hath,  Theophilus,  described  by 
Homer,  and  it  was  administered  hy  pouring  the  water  over 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  343 

the  head  and  shoulders  of  the  person  bathed.     Do  you  still 
doubt  if  immersion  was  necessary  to  a  bath  1" 

''No,  sir;  I  want  no  further  testimony.  This  is  plain 
enough.  One  such  description  of  a  bath,  where  the  mode 
is  stated,  is  enough  to  settle  the  principle.  I  see  now  that 
the  ancients,  like  ourselves,  frequently  used  the  shower-h^t\ 
and  therefore  the  term  may  include  any  mode  of  bathing. 
I  shall  never  be  able  to  express  my  thanks,  Mr.  Mason,  for 
the  aid  you  have  rendered  me,  and  the  further  I  avail  myself 
of  your  services,  the  less  foundation  appears  for  the  doctrine 
of  exclusive  immersion.  I  am  convinced,  sir,  that  the  ancients 
never  used  the  word  baptize  in  the  sense  of  dipping,  and 
the  evidences  you  have  brought  from  the  New  Testament 
are  conclusive. '^ 

''  There  are  many  other  places  which  we  might  examine 
among  the  Greek  writers;  but,  as  you  say,  Theophilus,  they  will 
all  go  to  prove  that  the  idea  of  dipping,  even  as  the  common 
meaning  of  baptidzo,  has  no  foundation  whatever.  But,  as 
we  have  met  every  evening  this  week,  and  perhaps  the 
audience  may  not  feel  much  more  interest  in  this  branch  of 
our  studies,  I  will  give  a  brief  review  of  this  evening's 
investigation,  and  then  dismiss. 

"  Mr.  Battle,  you  remember,  offered  to  prove  that  haptidzo 
in  the  Greek  meant  only  to  dip,  and  therefore  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  in  commanding  us  to  be  baptized,  commanded 
us  to  be  dipped.  When  he  brought  out  his  proofs,  however, 
not  07ie  of  them  clearly  established  his  position,  and  as  I 
proved  some  of  his  quotations  to  be  grossly  incorrect,  he 
became  alarmed  and  abandoned  his  task.  On  the  other 
hand,  I  showed  distinctly  that  the  application  of  water  to 
persons  or  things,  and  the  breaking  of  waves  over  a  bottle, 
were  called  baptisms  by  the  Greeks.  If  at  any  future  time 
any  one  present  should  desire  further  testimony  upon  this 
subject,  I  will  be  happy  to  furnish  it. 


344  THEOPHILUS     WALTON. 

"On  Monday  evening  we  sliall  discuss  the  subject  of 
Infant  Baptism,  and  see  whether  or  not  we  can  sustain  our 
practice  by  the  Scriptures,  for  by  the  rule  of  God's  word  we 
stand  or  iaW 


TRIAL  OF  MRS.  WILLIAMS  FOR  THE  CRIME  OF 
PARTAKINGS  OF  THE  LORD'S  SUPPER  WITH 
THE  LORD'S  PEOPLE. 


ALEXANDER  BATTLE,  AND  OTHERS,  FOR  THE 
PROSECUTION— RICHARD  BARBOUR  FOR  THE 
DEFENCE. 


15* 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  347 


CHAPTER    XIX. 


THE    TRIAL 


To  describe  the  irritation  and  mortification  which  resulted 
from  the  defeat  of  Mr.  Battle. on  Friday  evening,  would  be 
impossible.  His  friends  were  confident  of  success,  having 
seen  him,  at  other  times,  do  valiant  service  for  their  cause. 
But  when  they  witnessed  his  unwillingness  to  cope  with  Mr. 
Mason  in  the  field  of  classical  criticism,  they  were  sadly 
disappointed.  There  were  very  few,  however,  of  the  more 
decided  Baptists  who  were  disposed  to  compromise  the  cause 
by  acknowledging  themselves  vanquished.  They  indulged 
in  hopes  of  future  success,  when  Mr.  Battle  would  not  only 
repair  the  damages  of  the  past,  but  level  a  telling  blow  at 
Pedobaptism  in  that  country. 

Strange  to  say,  too,  although  the  fact  of  present  defeat 
was  too  plain  to  be  denied,  yet  there  were  many  who  not 
only  maintained  the  certainty  of  ultimate  success,  but  made 
it  the  occasion  of  no  little  boasting,  assuring  their  opponents 
that  Mr,  Mason  would  prove,  in  the  end,  by  no  means  a 
match  for  Mr.  Battle  !  Numbers  of  these  partisan  spirits 
employed  the  early  portion  of  the  following  day  in  eff"orts  to 
create  a  public  opinion  in  their  favor. 

"When  the  hour  arrived  for  the  usual  services  on  Saturday, 
as  it  was  the  monthly  meeting,  a  sermon  was  delivered  by 
Mr.  Ellis  on  the  purity  of  the  Church,  and  the  necessity  of 
building  our  hopes  upon  a  scriptural  foundation,     lu  this 


848 


OR, 


sermon^  althougli  there  was  a  studious  effort  to  avoid  giving 
a  hint  publicly  that  there  was  likely  to  be  a  division  among 
his  members  on  important  questions,  there  was,  nevertheless, 
to  an  observing  eye,  a  manifest  anxiety  telling  upon  the 
mind  of  the  preacher.  The  exhortation  to  avoid  all  occa- 
sions of  strife  by  which  the  name  of  the  Lord  might  be 
blasphemed,  had  a  particular  bearing,  but  with  what  success 
he  labored  we  shall  presently  see. 

The  congregation  was  dismissed  without  any  intimation 
that  business  of  unusual  importance  would  claim  the  atten- 
tion of  the  church.  The  Presbyterian  and  Methodist  minis* 
ters  were  both  present,  and  were  about  to  retire,  when  they 
were  informed  by  Theophilus  that  an  interesting  trial  was 
about  to  commence,  and  that,  in  accordance  with  their  usual 
custom,  he  presumed  the  Baptists  would  not  object  to  the 
presence  of  spectators.  They  returned  to  their  seats,  in  con- 
sequence of  this  information,  and  awaited  the  proceedings. 
Mr.  Ellis  seemed  not  a  little  perplexed  at  this  movement  of 
the  Pedobaptist  pastors,  and  for  some  moments  he  employed 
himself  seemingly  in  taking  the  advice  of  his  brethren. 

When  he  returned  to  his  seat,  and  the  usual  preliminaries 
were  gone  through,  it  was  announced  that  the  time  had  come 
for  the  trial  of  disorderly  members.  A  case  or  two  of  minor 
consequence  having  been  disposed  of,  by  requiring  confes- 
sion of  penitence  to  be  made  to  the  church,  the  case  of  Mrs. 
Williams  was  called.  The  old  lady  was  present,  and  in  her 
own  artless  manner  gave  a  full  statement  of  the  reasons 
which  had  induced  her  to  commune  with  the  Methodist  peo- 
ple. It  was  because  she  loved  them,  believed  that  they  were 
Christian  people,  and  as  such  she  could  not  refuse  to  sit  with 
them  at  the  Lord's  Table. 

^'Do  you  feel.  Sister  Williams,"  asked  Mr.  Ellis,  ^Uhat  in 
breaking  the  standing  order  of  your  Church  you  are  obeying 
the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  V 


THE     MAJESTY    OF     TRUTH.  349 

^'  I  do  not  believe  that  I  liave  broken  any  commandment 
of  the  Lord  Jesus/'  replied  Mrs.  Williams.  ^'  I  know  that 
I  have  violated  a  custom  of  our  Church,  but  I  do  not 
acknowledge  the  right  of  the  Church  to  control  my  con- 
science.'' 

"Then  you  take  the  liberty  of  judging  for  yourself,  I 
suppose,  in  defiance  of  all  advice  and  authority  of  your 
brethren  in  the  Church  V 

"1  have  heard  you  declare  in  your  sermons,  Brother 
Ellis,"  said  Mrs.  Williams,  "that  every  Christian  had  the 
right  to  judge  for  himself  in  all  matters  pertaining  to  the 
Scriptures.  I  have  done  nothing  more  than  this.  I  have 
searched  the  Bible,  and  I  see  nothing  there  forbidding  me 
to  commune  with  true  Christians,  and  therefore  I  have  taken 
the  liberty  to  do  so." 

"And  will  you  promise  us,  for  the  future,  if  we  look  over 
this  ofi'ence,  to  abstain  from  communing  with  Pedobaptist 
societies  ?" 

"  I  cannot  make  such  a  promise,"  replied  Mrs.  Williams; 
"  under  the  same  circumstances,  I  shall  in  all  probability  do 
just  as  I  did  last  Sabbath." 

"  Brethren,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  "  the  case  is  now  fairly  before 
you.  We  are  ready  to  hear  any  suggestion  or  remark  from 
any  brother  present." 

"  I  rise  to  move  that  Mrs.  AYilliams  be  expelled,"  said 
Deacon  Smith ;  "  we  cannot  forgive  the  ofi"ence  without  con- 
fession of  repentance,  and  this  she  refuses  to  make." 

"And  I  rise  to  inquire  by  what  authority  a  pious  member 
of  the  Church  is  to  be  expelled,  who  has  not  committed  a 
sin  against  Grod  ?"  said  Mr.  Barbour. 

"A  sin  against  God's  Church  is  a  sin  against  Him,"  re- 
plied Deacon  Smith. 

"I  demand  the  proof,   then,"   continued   Mr.   Barbour, 


350  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

'^  that  this  sister  has  committed  a  sin  against  the  Church  of 
God/'  ^ 

''  I  see  that  we  are  likely  to  have  a  discussion  which  in- 
volves the  very  existence  of  the  Church/'  said  Mr.  Ellis, 
'^  and  I  think  that  we  are  not  prepared  at  this  time  to  enter 
upon  it.  It  would  be  best,  brethren,  to  postpone  this  case 
until  we  are  in  a  better  condition  to  examine  it."" 

"  I  am  opposed  to  that,'^  said  Deacon  Smith ;  '^  we  are 
just  as  well  prepared  to  meet  this  issue  now  as  we  ever  shall 
be.  Let  it  come,  and  let  us  see  who  the  false  brethren  are, 
who  are  willing  to  sacrifice  the  cause  of  Christ.'' 

''Let  the  case  be  tried,''  said  Mr.  Barbour;  ''I  am  ready 
to  defend  this  sister,  and  I  stand  here  as  her  representative, 
and  demand  a  trial  in  her  behalf," 

''  Very  well,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  ''  it  shall  be  done.  Brother 
Battle,  as  you  have  a  great  deal  of  experience  in  these 
matters,  we  will  look  to  you  to  defend  the  practice  of  our 
Church." 

''  It  is  with  some  embarrassment,"  said  Mr.  Battle,  rising, 
''  that  I  venture  to  interfere  with  the  private  concerns  of 
your  church.  But  as  your  pastor  has  called  upon  me,  and 
the  subject  is  of  vital  importance  to  the  whole  denomination, 
I  trust  I  shall  be  excused.  We  contend  that  no  one  has  a 
right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  who  has  not  been 
baptized,  and  in  this  position  we  are  sustained  by  the  prac- 
tice of  Pedobaptists  themselves.  We  are  all  agreed  upon 
that  point.  It  follows,  then,  that  as  those  who  are  unbap- 
tized  have  no  right  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper,  those 
who  are  unbaptized  have  no  right  to  administer  it,  and  of 
course,  if  a  baptized  person  partakes  with  those  who  are  not 
baptized,  and  receives  the  bread  and  wine  from  the  hands 
of  unbaptized  persons,  he  violates  the  rule  and  ordinance  of 
God's  house.  In  other  words,  he  sins  against  God,  by  vio- 
lating the  ordinances  of  the  Lord's  house." 


THE     MAJESTY     OE    TRUTH.  351 

"  I  understand  that  position,"  said  Mr.  Barbour;  '^  I  know 
it  is  the  doctrine  of  this  Church.  What  T  want  now  is  the 
scriptural  authority  for  such  a  doctrine." 

^'  What  do  you  mean  ?"  asked  Mr.  Battle ;  ^'  do  you  want 
me  to  prove  that  Pedobaptists  are  not  baptized  V 

^^No,  sir,"  replied  Mr.  Barbour,  ^^I  want  light  upon  seve- 
ral points.  I  will  state  them  one  at  a  time,  to  prevent  con- 
fusion. In  the  first  place,  then,  I  want  you  to  show  me  the 
place  in  the  New  Testament  where  an  unhajnized  person  is 
forbidden  to  receive  the  Lord's  Supper.  Let  us  have  chap- 
ter and  verse." 

''  I  will  not  attempt  to  show  any  such  passage,"  replied 
Mr.  Battle ;  "  such  a  case  never  occurred  in"  the  New  Testa- 
ment Church.  No  man  ever  applied  at  the  Lord's  Table 
who  had  never  been  baptized." 

"  Well,  Brother  Battle,"  replied  Mr.  Barbour,  '^  I  want 
you  to  show  me  the  place  where  your  statement  is  made.  I 
want  to  see  the  evidence  that  no  one  did  apply  to  the  Church 
then  who  had  not  received  baptism.  Let  us  have  a  ^  Thus 
saith  the  Lord.' " 

^^  You  require  too  much,"  said  Mr.  Battle;  <^ because  the 
New  Testament  mentions  nothing  of  such  a  case,  I  conclude 
that  no  such  a  case  occurred." 

^'  Exactly  so ;  it  is  your  conchisiori,  not  the  language  of 
Scripture,  upon  which  you  rely.  And  inasmuch  as  the  Scrip- 
ture never  mentions  such  a  case,  you  not  only  infer  that 
there  was  no  such  case,  but,  in  addition,  you  infer  that  such 
a  person  would  have  been  excluded.  Now,  sir,  when  you 
defend  your  strict  communion  on  such  grounds,  how  can  you 
oppose  infant  baptism,  which  relies  upon  testimony  of  this 
very  kind — testimony  stronger  than  yours,  because  there  are 
more  probabilities  in  its  favor.  You  demand  positive  pre- 
cept for  infant  baptism,  and  at  the  same  time  defend  strict 
communion  upon  inferences  alone." 


352  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

^^Not  so  fast,  Brother  Barbour/'  said  Mr.  Battle;  ^'wc 
oppose  infant  baptism  because  it  is  forbidden  by  the  very 
commands  wliich  necessitate  strict  communion. '^ 

'^  Well,  then,  Brother  Battle,  let  us  have  the  commands. 
I  want  the  plain  testimony  of  Scripture,  and  when  you  give 
it,  I  will  yield.'' 

"  We  find  in  the  Scriptures,  that  baptism  was  first  insti- 
tuted, and  then  followed  the  supper.  In  this  order,  then,  it 
is  plain  our  Lord  intended  that  they  should  be  administered. 
This  you  cannot  deny." 

"  But  I  <Io  deny  this  very  assumption.  I  demand  the 
proof  that  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  before  the  sup- 
per." 

"  Why,  Brother  Barbour !  do  you  deny  that  John  the 
Baptist  administered  baptism  before  Christ  instituted  the 
supper  ?" 

'^  No,  sir,  but  I  deny  that  John's  was  Christian  baptism, 
for  the  very  reason  that  the  Bible  does  not  say  so.  One  was 
the  baptism  of  o^epentance,  in  whose  name  administered  we 
know  not,  and  the  other  was  a  baptism  in  the  name  of  the 
Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit." 

^'  The  formula  may  not  have  been  the  same,  but  the  suh- 
stance  was.  If  you  deny  this,  you  must  take  the  ground 
that  Christ  was  not  baptized." 

"I  do  take  the  position  that  Christ  never  did  receive 
Christian  baptism,  Brother  Battle.  Christian  baptism  was 
never  administered,  so  far  as  I  can  judge,  by  any  persons 
but  the  disciples  of  Christ.  John  was  not  a  disciple  of 
Christ,  but  his  forerunner,  or  herald  to  announce  his  ap- 
proach." 

"  I  must  say  that  you  entertain  very  singular  opinions, 
Brother  Barbour.  You  are  in  direct  conflict  with  Baptist 
doctrine  on  this  subject." 

"  I  am  not  concerned  to  know  whether  I  am  in  conflict 


THE     MAJESTY     OF    TRUTH.  853 

witli  Baptist  doctriue  or  not.  What  I  want  to  know  is, 
whether  I  am  opposed  to  the  Scripture — that  is  my  rule  of 
faith,  not  the  opinions  of  Baptists.  Moreover,  sir,  there 
have  been  distinguished  Baptists  who  have  lived  and  died 
in  the  belief  of  the  very  positions  which  I  hold.  I  have 
been  reading  recently  Kobert  Hall  on  the  Terms  of  Com- 
munion, and  I  find  my  views  not  only  ably  sustained,  but,  in 
my  judgment,  unanswerably  established." 

"  Robert  Hall,  indeed  !  Why,  sir,  if  you  do  not  know 
that  his  opinions  on  this  subject  are  not  worth  a  rush  with 
American  Baptists,  I  must  say  that  you  are  very  far  behind 
the  times.'' 

^'Well,  Brother  Battle,  if  his  opinions  are  so  lightly 
esteemed,  you  can  certainly  overturn  his  arguments  without 
difficulty.  I  have  the  book  in  my  hand,  and  as  he  gives  my 
views  better  than  I  can  myself,  I  will  read  some  extracts. 
After  stating  this  position  of  yours,  that  baptism  was  insti- 
tuted before  the  supper,  and  therefore,  in  point  of  time, 
must  precede  it,  together  with  the  assumption  that  John's 
was  Christian  baptism,  he  proceeds  to  overturn  both  asser- 
tions by  a  mass  of  Scripture  evidence,  to  which  I  invite 
your  respectful  attention.  Mr.  Hall  says  :  '  The  commission 
to  baptize  all  nations,  which  was  executed  by  the  apostles 
after  our  Saviour's  resurrection,  originated  in  his  express 
command.  John's  baptism,  it  is  evident,  had  no  such 
origin.  John  had  baptized  for  some  time  before  he  knew 
him ;  it  is  certain,  then,  that  he  did  not  receive  his  commis- 
sion from  him.  "And  I  knew  him  not,"  saithhe;  "but 
that  he  should  be  made  manifest  unto  Israel,  therefore  am  I 
come  baptizing  with  water."  If  the  manifesting  of  Christ  to 
Israel  was  the  end  and  design  of  John's  mission,  he  must 
have  been  in  a  previous  state  of  obscurity;  not  in  a  situa- 
tion to  act  the  part  of  a  legislator,  by  enacting  laws  or  estab- 
lishing rites.     John  uniformly  ascribes  his  commission  not 


35i  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

to  Christ,  but  to  the  Father ;  so  that  to  assert  his  baptism 
to  be  a  Christian  institute,  is  not  to  interpret  but  to  contra- 
dict him/  Now,  Brother  Battle,  what  have  you  to  say  to 
that  V 

'^Go  on,  brother;  when  you  get  tired  reading,  I  may 
get  a  chance  to  speak," 

^'I  will  give  way  to  you,  Brother  Battle,  if  you  wish  it. 
I  want  these  arguments  answered:  if  you  can  do  it,  I  shall 
be  obliged  to  you ;  for  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  they  not 
only  appear  plausible,  but  they  are  undoubtedly  forcible.  I 
have  read  in  connection  with  Mr.  Hall's  work  ^Booth's 
Apology  for  the  Baptists,'  Mr.  Kinghorn's  treatise  on  the 
same  subject,  besides  several  minor  publications,  such  as 
Howell  and  Fuller  on  Communion.  I  am  astonished  at  the 
fact,  that  although  all  these  writers,  Kinghorn,  Booth, 
Howell,  and  Fuller,  are  in  favor  of  strict  communion,  they 
do  not  advocate  it  upon  similar  grounds,  but  differ  very 
widely  from  each  other.'' 

''  I  see  you  are  becoming  skeptical.  Brother  Barbour." 

'^If  I  am,  it  has  been  under  the  influence  of  Baptist 
productions,  for  I  have  never  read  a  line  that  I  remember 
from  a  Pedobaptist  upon  the  subject.  But  that  has  nothing 
to  do  with  the  matter.  Here  are  Robert  Hall's  arguments, 
in  lucid  language,  conveying  an  amount  of  solid  reasoning 
which  must  produce  effect  upon  the  sincere  inquirer.  He 
proves  conclusively,  to  my  mind,  that  so  far  from  Christian 
baptism  preceding  the  Lord's  supper,  in  point  of  time,  the 
supper  was  first  instituted,  in  the  lifetime  of  Christ,  and 
baptism  was  not  appointed  until  after  his  resurrection. 
Under  this  view  of  the  case,  then,  it  is  plain  that  the  apos- 
tles, who  were  the  first  communicants  at  the  Lord's  Table, 
were  unbaptized  when  thej^  partook  of  the  supper,  and  con- 
sequently they  were,  in  this  respect,  in  the  very  same  situa- 
tion with  our  Pedobaptist  brethren.     Mr.  Hall's  argument 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  355 

upon  tliis  subject  is  so  strong  that  I  cannot  retrain  from 
reading  it :(  '  Since  it  is  manifest  that  the  baptism  of  John 
did  not  supersede  the  Christian  ordinance^  they  being  per- 
fectly distinct^  it  is  natural  to  inquire  lulio  haptized  the 
ajwsflcs,  and  the  hundred  and  twenty  disciples  assembled 
with  them  on  the  day  of  Pentecost?  i/y  deltherate  opinion 
is,  that,  in  the  Christian  sense  of  the  term,  they  were  not  hap- 
tized  at  all.  From  the  total  silence  of  Scripture,  and  from 
other  circumstances  which  might  be  adduced,  it  is  difficult 
to  suppose  they  submitted  to  that  rite  after  our  Saviour's 
resurrection;  and  previous  to  it,  it  has  been  sufficiently 
proved  that  it  was  not  in  force.  It  is  almost  certain  that 
some,  probably  most  of  them,  had  been  baptized  by  John ; 
but,  for  reasons  which  have  been  already  amply  assigned, 
this  will  not  account  for  their  not  submitting  to  the  Christ- 
ian ordinance/  Again,  after  considering  the  argument  for 
strict  communion,  from  the  order  of  words  in  the  apostolic 
commission,  he  asks  :  '  But  where,  let  me  ask,  is  it  asserted 
in  the  New  Testament  that  no  unbaptized  person  shall  par- 
take of  the  eucharist?  So  far  from  this,  it  has  been,  I 
trust,  satisfactorily  shown  that,  of  the  original  communi- 
cants at  its  institution,  not  one  teas  thus  qualified.'  " 

''  What's  the  use  of  reading  all  that  V  asked  Mr.  Ellis ; 
^^  we  all  know  that  Robert  Hall  was  in  favor  of  mixed  com- 
munion." 

'^  Because  I  want  you  to  show  the  fallacy  of  his  argu- 
ments if  you  can ;  if  you  cannot,  you  will  never  get  my 
vote  to  expel  a  member  from  the  Church  who  has  violated 
no  rule  of  God's  word.  The  practice  of  strict  communion 
is  either  founded  upon  the  law  of  Grod,  or  it  is  not.  If  it  is, 
shoio  me  the  law,  and  I  say  no  more.  If  it  is  not,  it  is  a 
human  invention,  intolerant  in  itself,  and  only  consistent 
with  a  bigoted  exclusiveness,  which  we  ought,  in  the  name 
of  Christian  charity,  to  abandon.'' 


356  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^^  It  seems  to  me,"  said  Mr.  Battle,  "  that  you  are  losing 
sight  of  the  subject.  The  question  is  not  whether  a  Pedo- 
baptist,  being  unbaptized,  ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's 
supper;  but  whether  a  Baptist  member  should  receive  the 
supper  from  those  who  are  not  authorized  to  administer  it. 
Speak  to  the  point,  Mr.  Barbour.'' 

"  With  due  deference  to  your  superior  wisdom,  I  submit 
that  the  two  cases  rest  upon  the  same  foundation.  If,  as 
Mr.  Hall  proves,  the  apostles  were  not  baptized  when  they 
received  the  supper,  they  were  unbaptized  when  they  admin- 
istered it ;  so  that  the  being  unbaptized  is  no  greater  obstacle 
to  administering  than  to  receiving  it.  So,  then,  our  Pedo- 
baptist  friends,  even  if  we  could  demonstrate  that  they  have 
not  been  truly  baptized,  are  not  in  a  worse  condition  than 
the  apostles  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  say,  if  we  could 
demonstrate  that  they  are  not  baptized ;  for,  to  my  own  mor- 
tification, I  have  seen  more  than  one  attempt  of  late  to  do 
that  thing,  which  in  every  case  ended  in  humiliating  fail- 
ure. I  speak  boldly,  because  I  have  nothing  to  disguise — 
nothing  to  cover  up ;  if  I  have  hitherto  been  in  error,  I 
should  be  unworthy  the  name  of  a  disciple  of  Christ  if  I 
did  not  retrace  my  steps,  and  confess  that  error  to  the 
world.'' 

^'And  you  require  proof  that  immersion  is  baptism.  Bro- 
ther Barbour  ?"  asked  Mr.  Ellis. 

"No,  sir;  I  require  a  demonstration  that  immersion  alone 
is  baptism ;  and  that  those  who  do  not  and  cannot  believe 
our  exclusive  doctrine,  are,  by  that  alone,  rendered  unquali- 
fied for  the  ordinances  of  Grod's  house,  and  for  salvation  in 
heaven.  For,  turn  it  as  you  may,  brethren,  twist  it  as  you 
please,  the  great  fact  stares  us  in  the  face,  that,  as  we  con- 
tend for  a  Baptist  supper,  we  practically  assert  that  none 
but  Baptists  do  the  will  of  Christ,  and,  consequently,  none 
but  Baptists  can  get  to  heaven.     I  know  you  will  not  assert 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  357 

a  doctrine  so  abhorrent  to  every  feeling  of  Christian  charity; 
but  it  follows  as  a  necessary  consequence  of  your  theory. 
If  Pedobaptists  are  not  baptized,  according  to  our  doctrine, 
they  have  not  put  on  Christ ;  and  yet  we  acknowledge  that 
some  of  the  holiest  men  that  ever  lived  were  Pedobaptists. 
A  strange  inconsistency — to  admit  at  one  time  that  certain 
persons  love  the  Lord  Jesus,  that  they  are  in  daily  fellow- 
ship and  communion  with  him,  and  yet  they  refuse  to  keep 
his  commandments,  and  reject  the  proper  administration  of 
his  ordinances." 

"  Then  you  would  have  us  throw  open  our  doors  to  Roman 
Catholics,  Unitarians,  Universalists,  and  everybody  else  who 
might  be  pleased  to  come.  A  fine  Church  of  Christ  you 
would  build  for  us  !"  exclaimed  Mr.  Ellis. 

"  No,  sir,'^  replied  Mr.  Barbour ;  ''  I  would  have  you  to 
receive  all  true  children  of  God  who  give  evidence  of  love 
to  Christ,  whose  piety  is  undoubted.  It  is  all  a  fallacy 
about  Pvoman  Catholics,  Unitarians,  and  Universalists  intrud- 
ing upon  you.  If  there  should  happen  to  come  a  true  disci- 
ple of  Jesus,  who  held  singular,  and,  to  us,  ridiculous  views 
of  papal  supremacy,  if  that  man  is  a  true  Christian,  you 
have  no  more  right  to  exclude  him  from  the  Lord's  Table 
than  you  have  to  shut  the  gates  of  heaven  against  him. 
His  errors  are  his  own  j  to  God  he  is  accountable  for  them, 
not  to  you.  His  piety  is  a  proof  of  God's  mercy  to  him, 
notwithstanding  his  erroneous  notions;  and  if  God  will 
open  to  him  the  gates  of  heaven,  it  is  more  than  you  dare 
do  to  close  the  doors  of  Christian  communion  against  him. 
I  warn  you,  brethren,  that  there  is  a  fearful  meaning  in  that 
text  which  says :  '  It  were  better  for  him  that  a  mill-stone 
were  hanged  about  his  neck,  and  that  he  were  drowned  in 
the  depth  of  the  sea,'  who  presumes  to  '  offend  one  of  these 
little  ones  that  believe  in  me.'  Yet  you  do  not  hesitate  to 
shut  out  true  Christians  from  the  Lord's  Table,  and  declare 


358  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

that  some  of  tlie  greatest  and  best  of  men  are  regularly  in 
the  habit  of  profaning  a  sacred  ordinance,  the  solemn, 
awful  institution  of  the  supper  !  You  hurl  your  anathemas 
at  them,  and  if  they  are  not  received  generally  as  the 
severest  punishment  known  to  the  Christian  Church,  it  is 
simply  because  these  good  men  smile  at  our  imbecility,  and 
feel  that  our  intolerance  is  that  of  weakness.  In  this  alone 
is  it  distinguished  from  the  intolerance  of  the  Church  of 
Rome — it  is  the  intolerance  of  pride,  without  power  to  make 
it  formidable.  I  challenge  you  to  produce  one  solitary  pas- 
sage of  Scripture  which  will  justify  your  position.  I  defy 
you  to  show  me  one  solitary  instance  where  a  true  believer 
in  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  living  in  the  enjoyment  of  true 
vital  religion,  was  ever  shut  out  from  the  Lord's  Table  by  the 
apostles.  If  you  can  find  neither  precept  nor  example  for 
it,  I  beseech  you  to  abandon  the  practice.  Abandon  it  now, 
and  let  us  cease  to  nourish  that  despotic  pride  of  opinion, 
which  is  as  manifestly  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  the  gospel  as 
it  is  destructive  of  the  peace  and  unity  of  the  Church  of 
God.  I  care  not  for  your  appeals  to  the  examples  of  Pedo- 
baptists ;  if  they  unanimously  agree  that  baptism  does  come 
before  communion,  it  would  not  affect  the  question  at  all. 
The  true  issue  is.  Does  any  other  Church  exclude  from  the 
Lord's  supper  those  whom  it  acknowledges  to  be  true 
Christians  and  enjoying  the  favor  of  God  ?  I  venture  to 
say  that  no  other  society  or  community  of  Christian  men 
has  dared  to  commit  such  an  atrocious  act  in  the  kingdom 
of  Christ.  Roman  Catholics  may  exclude  Protestants  from 
their  communion,  but  they  do  it  because  the  gloomy  theory 
which  they  advocate  places  the  keys  of  heaven  in  the  hands 
of  a  man,  and  dooms  all  outside  of  their  pale  to  destruction. 
The  bigoted  Churchman  may  exclude  others  from  the  Lord's 
Table  who  have  not  submitted  to  the  imposition  of  hands  by 
a  regular  descendant  and  successor  of  the  apostles,  as  he 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH,  859 

fancies  his  own  ministry  to  be;  but  the  grounds  of  his 
rejection  are  the  absence  of  piety  in  the  dissenter,  as  the 
grace  of  God  flows  only  through  episcopal  hands.  Gloomy 
and  revolting  as  these  theories  are,  it  remains  for  us  to  imi- 
tate the  exclusiveness  of  both,  without  a  particle  of  the 
foundation  which  supports  the  system  of  Papists  and  High- 
Churchmen.  We  have  all  the  intolerance  of  both,  but  not  a 
shadow  of  the  reasons  of  either.  We  alone,  of  all  exclusive 
sects,  presume  to  curse  those  whom  we  acknowledge  God  has 
hlesscd;  we  alone  reject  from  the  Lord's  Table  those  whom 
we  confess  to  be  on  their  way  to  heaven  ;  to  be  constantly 
quitting  these  low  grounds  of  sorrow,  to  take  their  places  in 
the  ranks  of  the  sacramental  hosts.  And  how  shall  we 
defend  ourselves  when  the  God  of  charity  shall  demand  of 
us  why  we  fed  not  the  hungry  who  sat  in  our  courts, 
and  were  pushed  aside  when  the  emblems  of  our  Master's 
broken  body  and  shed  blood  were  distributed  ?  Shall  we 
tell  him  that  he  left  us  such  a  command  ?  No,  for  we  dare 
not  assert  that  there  is  such  a  command  on  record.  Shall 
we  tell  him  that  we  did  it  to  preserve  his  Church  pure  and 
uncontaminated  ?  And  will  not  the  presence  of  those 
happy  spirits  there,  whom  we  presumed  to  thrust  out  of 
Christ's  visible  kingdom,  will  not  the?/  condemn  us  ?  And 
will  not  the  same  voice  which  rebuked  the  selfishness  of 
Peter  by  the  vision  of  the  sheet  and  the  command  to  slay 
and  cat — will  not  that  voice  proclaim.  That  which  God 
hath  cleansed  call  not  thou  common  or  unclean  ?" 

"Stop,  stop.  Brother  Barbour;  you  are  becoming  ex- 
cited," said  Mr.  Ellis;  "I  admire  your  eloquence,  and  wish 
it  were  expended  in  a  better  cause." 

"  If  the  possession  of  a  good  cause  can  make  one  elo- 
quent," said  Mr.  Barbour,  "  then  I  ought  to  be  so  to-day. 
I  am  pleading  in  behalf  of  the  greater  portion  of  God's 
children,  the  great  majority  of  God's  people;  I  am  pleading 


3G0 

for  their  rights — rights  which  God  has  granted  them,  of 
which  you  are  determined  to  dej^rive  them.  I  am  striving 
to  open  your  eyes,  my  brethren,  to  let  you  see  what  a  fearful 
responsibility  you  are  incurring.  If,  after  all  that  has  been 
said  upon  the  subject,  it  should  appear  that  the  Pedobaptists 
are  r'ujlit  and  we  are  wrong,  in  what  a  position  do  we  place 
ourselves  !  Practicing  an  intolerant  custom,  founded  upon 
an  opinion  which  we  cannot  demonstrate,  we  establish  the 
principle  that  infaUibillty  alone  can  secure  our  own  salva- 
tion ;  and,  as  we  assume  that  we  are  right,  we  lay  claim  to 
infallible  correctness  in  interpreting  the  word  of  God.'' 

"Brother  Barbour,"  interposed  Mr.  Battle,  ''we  are 
doing  the  very  thing  which  is  practiced  universally  among 
Pedobaptists;  how,  then,  do  you  dream  of  making  us  guilty 
of  these  heinous  offences  which  you  enumerate  ?  Presbyte- 
rians will  not  suffer  any  to  commune  with  them  who  are  not 
baptized;  Methodists  take  the  same  ground;  and  because 
we  take  it,  and  exclude  them  because  we  believe  their 
sprinkling  of  infants  to  be  invalid,  you  charge  us  with 
inconsistency." 

''  I  know  that  you  have  offered  the  usual  plea  for  strict 
communion,  that  others  who  are  excluded  practice  upon  the 
same  theory;  but  I  deny  the  fact.  I  deny  that  the  cases 
are  at  all  similar.  If  Presbyterians  were  to  assert  that 
sprinkling  only  is  baptism,  and  therefore  none  should  com- 
mune with  them  who  are  not  sprinkled,  then,  sir,  I  would 
charge  them  with  intolerance.  If  they  were  to  refuse  every 
person  who  had  not  been  sprinkled  in  infancy,  then  their 
practice  would  be  intolerant.  But  you  know,  sir,  that  there 
is  a  great  fallacy  in  this  appeal  to  the  example  of  others. 
If  it  were  in  all  points  exactly  like  your  own,  it  would  not 
justify  you,  as  no  amount  of  proof  that  others  do  wrong 
can  convert  that  error  into  right.  But  you  cannot  prove 
that  Presbyterians  would  refuse  to  administer  the  supper  to 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  361 

a  man  who  was  truly  pious,  and  yet,  for  sufficient  cause, 
remained  unbaptized.  Such  cases  may  be  rare,  but  there  is 
nothing  in  their  theory  or  practice  which  forbids  his 
approach  to  the  Lord's  Table.  Indeed,  I  have  heard  a  dis- 
tinguished Presbyterian  say  that  he  would  not  hesitate  to 
suffer  a  pious  Quaker  to  commune  with  him,  if  he  conscien- 
tiously believed  that  baptism  was  not  of  perpetual  force  in 
the  Church.  Upon  such  a  subject  there  must  be  a  diversity 
of  opinion,  of  course.  But  when  you  appeal  to  the  practice 
of  Pedobaptist  Churches,  as  I  said  before,  you  give  us  alto- 
gether irrelevant  examples.  According  to  their  system, 
infants  and  adults  are  so  readily  baptized,  so  easily  is  the 
ordinance  administered,  that  a  neglect  of  it  amounts  to  a 
milful  disregard  of  the  command,  and  therefore  becomes  a 
very  proper  hindrance  to  communion.  But  they  raise  no 
barriers  in  the  way  constructed  of  differences  of  opinion; 
they  exclude  none  because  they  are  not  baptized  in  this  or 
that  manner ;  and  this  is  the  very  offence  which  we  commit. 
If  we  could  charge  Pedobaptists  with  ivilfid  disobedience  to 
the  command,  then,  indeed,  we  would  be  justified  in  repel- 
ling them.  But  we  cannot  do  this,  for  we  admit  that  many 
of  them  are  as  pious  as  ourselves.  And  I  assert  again,  that 
ice  are  the  only  people  in  Cliristendom  icho  reject  confessedly 
p){ous  Christians  from  the  Lord's  Tahle.  The  inconsistency 
is  ours,  and  ours  alone ;  no  other  Church  can  shield  us  from 
ignominy  upon  this  score  by  sharing  the  blame  with  us. 

^^  Robert  Hall  places  this  argument  in  a  strong  light.  He 
says  :  '  The  argument  from  authority,  however,  when  fairly 
stated,  is  entirely  in  our  favor ',  nor  would  it  be  easy  to  assign 
an  example  of  holder  deviation  from  the  universal  practice 
of  the  Christian  Church  than  the  conduct  of  our  opponents 
(close-communion  Baptists)  supplies.  They  are  the  only 
j>ersons  in  the  world,  of  ichom  v:e  have  either  heard  or  ready 
loho  contend  for  the  exclusion  of  genuine  Christians  from 
16 


362  THEOPIIILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

the  LorcVs  Table;  wlio  ever  attempted  to  distinguish  them 
into  two  classes,  such  as  are  entitled  to  commemorate  their 
Saviour's  death,  and  such  as  are  excluded  from  that  privi- 
lege. In  what  page  of  the  voluminous  records  of  the 
Church  is  such  a  distinction  to  be  traced  ?  Or  what  intima- 
tion shall  we  find  in  Scripture  of  an  intention  to  create 
such  an  invidious  disparity  among  the  members  of  the  same 
body  ?  Did  it  ever  enter  the  conception  of  any  hut  Baptists 
that  a  right  to  the  sign  should  he  separated  from  the  tiling  sig- 
nified ;  or  that  there  could  he  a  description  of  persons  inter- 
ested in  all  the  hlesshigs  of  the  Christian  covenant,  yet  not 
entitled  to  partake  of  its  sacraments  and  seals  ?^  Terms  of 
Communion,  p.  60, 

^'  But  there  is  a  graver  charge  still,"  continued  Mr.  Bar- 
bour, "  with  which  we  are  justly  arraigned.  There  is  a  spe- 
cies of  insincerity  practiced  among  us  in  defending  strict 
communion.  "We  tell  the  world  that  baptism  is  the  only 
barrier  to  communion.  We  know  this  to  be  untrue.  If  a 
member  of  our  Church,  who  has  been  regularly  baptized, 
goes  and  joins  another  Church,  we  refuse  to  admit  him  to 
the  Lord's  Supper.  Our  defence  is  that  he  has  acted  disor- 
derly, and  therefore  must  be  expelled — and  expelled  mem- 
bers must  confess  their  errors  and  reform  before  we  receive 
them  to  the  Table.  The  expulsion  is  an  excuse,  nothing 
more ;  and  I  hesitate  not  to  say  that  such  an  excuse  is  not 
only  prevarication  of  a  gross  character,  but  it  is  a  crime. 
By  expelling  one  from  our  Church,  we  say  that  he  has  com- 
mitted such  an  offence  as  would  exclude  him  from  the  king- 
dom of  grace,  although  he  may  not  say  one  word  against  us ; 
he  may  speak  kindly  of  us,  and  be  at  that  moment,  in  our 
own  judgment,  as  good  a  Christian  as  any  of  us.  And  yet 
we  excommunicate  him,  and  declare  him  unworthy  of  the 
fellowship  of  God's  people  !  Nor  is  this  all.  It  has  been 
the  practice  of  this  church,  and  is  our  practice  everywhere, 


THE     MAJESTY     OP    TRUTH.  363 

I  believe^  to  refuse  to  commune  witli  those  Pedobaptists  who 
have  been  immersed  precisely  as  we  require.  Some  of  us 
pretend  that  the  immersion  is  invalid,  because  the  adminis- 
trator was  not  immersed  ;  or  if  he  happened  to  be  immersed, 
then  we  fall  back  upon  the  man  who  immersed  him,  and  so 
we  hatch  up  the  doctrine  of  baptismal  succession — a  fancy 
of  our  own,  more  ludicrous  than  the  pretensions  of  the 
Pope,  or  the  claims  of  High-Churchmen.  Then,  again,  it 
happens,  as  in  the  case  of  Elder  Stanley's  wife,  for  the  sake 
of  gaining  a  member,  we  take  a  person  of  influence,  who 
has  been  immersed  by  a  Methodist,  without  rebaptizing, 
while  at  the  same  time  we  would  refuse  the  communion  to 
him  so  long  as  he  remains  out  of  our  Church.  Now  these 
are  facts.  You  know  them  to  be  such.  And  yet  we  affirm 
that  baptism  is  the  only  bar  to  free  communion  V 

''  It  is  time  for  this  harangue  to  stop  I"  exclaimed  Mr. 
Ellis.  "  We  cannot  listen  to  your  charges  any  longer,  Mr. 
Barbour.  If  you  proceed  any  farther,  we  must  resort  to  an 
effectual  method  of  imposing  silence." 

"  I  understand  you,"  replied  Mr.  Barbour  ;  ''  I  have  ex- 
amined my  position  carefully  and  prayerfully.  I  am  pre- 
pared for  any  issue  that  may  be  made.  For  the  present, 
however,  in  behalf  of  the  sister  on  trial,  I  demand  the  law 
by  which  she  is  to  be  tried.  Grive  us  the  scriptural  author- 
ity for  the  course  you  are  taking." 

"  Brethren,"  said  Mr.  Ellis,  seeming  to  take  no  notice 
whatever  of  Mr.  Barbour's  remark,  "  what  is  your  pleasure 
in  this  case  ?  The  motion  before  you  is  to  expel  Sister  Wil- 
liams for  disorderly  conduct.  Are  you  ready  for  the  ques- 
tion ?" 

"  Question  !  question  !"  shouted  Deacon  Smith.  Where- 
upon the  vote  was  taken,  and  a  large  majority  found  in  favor 
of  expulsion.  As  soon  as  the  vote  was  taken  and  announced, 
Mr.  Barbour  rose  and  declared  his  intention  of  withdrawinor 


864  THEOPHILUS     WALTON. 

from  the  cliurcli.  He  was  preparing  to  leave  tlie  house, 
when  Mr.  Fleming  overtook  him  and  endeavored  to  dissuade 
him  from  his  course.  It  was  in  vain,  however,  for  the 
young  man  had  permitted  his  feelings  to  become  so  entirely 
absorbed  in  the  case  he  was  pleading,  that  he  felt  it  would 
be  useless  to  remain  in  a  church  any  longer  where  he  was 
forced  to  acquiesce  in  such  flagrant  acts  of  injustice,  with  a 
remote  prospect  of  reconciliation.  While  Mr.  Fleming  was 
pleading  with  him  to  return,  as  they  were  standing  on  the 
steps  of  the  church,  he  heard  his  name  called  within,  and, 
returning  to  his  seat,  he  ascertained  that  he  was  called  upon 
to  apologize  for  the  vote  he  had  just  given,  Mr.  Fleming 
had  voted  against  the  majority,  and  as  submission  to 
that  majority,  right  or  wrong,  was  inevitable,  he  was 
called  upon  to  give  his  consent  to  the  action  of  the  church. 
This  he  could  not  do.  Here  a  new  difficulty  arose.  Mr. 
Fleming  was  inflexible,  and  the  majority  was  equally  so. 
The  afi'air  at  last  terminated  in  a  motion  to  postpone  the  cases 
of  the  refractory  members  to  the  next  monthly  meeting. 

Thus  ended  the  session  of  a  memorable  Baptist  Confer- 
ence in  Maryville.  An  old  lady  was  expelled  for  recogniz- 
ing Pedobaptists  as  fellow-Christians,  and  for  receiving  the 
sacred  emblems  from  the  hands  of  her  own  son,  and  several 
members  forced  to  apologize  for  their  votes  in  her  favor,  on 
pain  of  being  arraigned  as  '  disorderly,^  and  suifering  the 
penalty  of  exclusion.  As  for  Mr.  Barbour,  as  the  reader 
has  seen,  he  was  too  far  committed  in  favor  of  free  commu- 
nion to  recede ;  there  was  no  other  alternative  for  him  but 
to  notify  them  of  his  withdrawal,  and  let  them  expel  him — 
which  they  did  not  fail  to  do,  after  all  eff"orts  to  reclaim  him 
were  unavailinor. 


^iglttlt  ^vftting* 


IS  INFANT  BAPTISM  OF  GOD  OR  OF  MEN  ? 


"TO    THE    LAW   AND    TO    THE   TESTIMONY." 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         367 


EIGHTH    EVENING 


On  Monday  evening,  at  tlie  appointed  hour/  the  audience 
assembled  at  the  Methodist  church.  It  was  ascertained, 
early  in  the  afternoon,  that  Mr.  Battle  had  received  a  letter 
from  home  requiring  his  immediate  presence  there,  and  Mr. 
Ellis  found  some  important  business  which  called  him  some 
distance  into  the  country.  Mr.  Mason  and  Theopliilus  were 
consequently  left  in  quiet  possession  of  the  field,  from  which 
the  two  Baptist  ministers  had  gathered  so  few  laurels.  Of 
course,  there  were  but  few  Baptist  members  present.  Those 
Avho  were  there,  however,  were  seeking  to  know  the  truth, 
and  having  seen  their  advocates  fail  them  in  the  hour  of 
trial,  were  almost  ready  to  abandon  the  exclusive  system  to 
which  they  formerly  clung  with  great  tenacity.  If  Mr. 
Mason  should  be  as  successful  in  his  defence  of  infant  bap- 
tism as  he  had  been  in  the  topics  already  discussed,  more 
than  one  of  them  resolved  to  acknowledge  the  fact,  and 
seek  fellowship  in  a  more  liberal  and  congenial  s^^stem  than 
their  own. 

^'  We  are  now  entering  upon  a  portion  of  the  Baptist  con- 
troversy," remarked  Mr.  Mason,  ^'  which  affords  such  a  vast 
field  for  investigation,  that  we  must  necessarily  condense 
our  observations,  in  order  not  to  trespass  on  the  patience  of 
our  auditors. 


368  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^' The  first  branch  of  the  subject  is  the  history  of  Infant 
Baptism.  We  find  the  practice  of  it  in  ahnost  all  the 
Churches  of  modern  times,  and  the  question  naturally  arises, 
Has  infant  baptism  always  prevailed  in  the  Christian  Church, 
or  is  it  an  innovation  upon  the  apostolic  usage  ?  If  it  be  an 
innovation,  it  is  apparent  to  every  man's  mind  that  it  must 
have  been  introduced  by  degrees,  gaining  more  or  less  favor 
in  difi'erent  ages,  until  it  became  the  universal  practice  of 
the  Church.  There  must  have  been  a  time,  then,  when  the 
innovation  began,  and  it  is  very  natural  to  suppose  that 
coincident  with  its  introduction  would  be  the  remonstrances 
and  resistance  of  those  who  desired  to  preserve  the  customs 
of  the  Church  in  an  uncorrupted  form. 

^^As  in  regard  to  the  mode  of  baptism,  so  also  in  reference 
to  infant  baptism,  our  opponents  are  very  much  divided. 
Some  of  them  affirm  that  infant  baptism  was  the  offspring 
of  the  papacy,  and  that  it  only  became  general  when  the 
edicts  of  the  popes  compelled  the  Catholic  Church  to  receive 
it,  some  time  in  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century.  Others, 
again,  admit  its  existence  as  early  as  the  commencement  of 
the  third  century.  We  shall  begin,  then,  by  searching  the 
history  of  the  ordinance,  and  see  how  far  the  testimony  of 
the  Church  supports  the  charge  of  innovation.  Let  it  be 
remembered,  however,  that  in  quoting  the  testimony  of  the 
so-called  ^  Fathers'  of  the  Church,  we  have  nothing  whatever 
to  do  with  the  doctrines  which  they  taught.  I  have  already 
stated  that  the  ordinances  of  the  Church  became  corrupted 
at  a  very  early  period,  and  that  baptismal  regencratiou 
appears  as  early  as  the  commencement  of  the  second  cen- 
tury. Our  opponents  are  very  willing  to  admit  this  fact,  when 
an  opportunity  occurs  to  turn  the  strength  of  the  argument 
against  infant  baptism,  but  when  they  feel  that  their  pecu- 
liar mode  is  in  danger,  they  postpone  the  period  of  corrup- 
tion to  a  later  age,  and  deny  the  existence  of  Pedobaptism 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  369 

in  tlie  first  centuries.  But  we  are  willing  to  take  the  facts 
as  they  stand,  without  embellishment  or  suppression,  and  we 
shall  see  what  their  testimony  is  worth. 

"  Our  object  is  now  to  ascertain  whether  or  not  the  apos- 
tles, and  those  who  followed  them  in  the  Christian  ministry, 
practiced  infant  baptism.  To  do  this,  we  must  search  those 
records  which  are  extant,  reaching  to  the  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, if  there  are  any  such ;  and  if  we  cannot  find  in  them 
any  evidence  of  the  introduction  of  a  radical  change  in  the 
subjects  of  the  ordinance,  the  presumption  is  very  strong 
that  no  such  change  took  place.  We  do  not  rely  upon  this 
testimony,  however,  as  conclusive  proof — we  must  go  to  the 
Bible  as  our  ultimate  appeal. 

"  It  is  admitted  by  Mr.  Tombs,  a  Baptist  writer  of  distinc- 
tion, that,  after  the  commencement  of  the  Ji/th  century, 
infant  baptism  was  prevalent  in  the  Church.  We  must 
ascend  a  step  higher,  and  see  whether  or  not  it  existed  in 
the  fourth  century.  Pelagius,  who  denied  the  doctrine  of 
original  sin,  lived  in  the  latter  part  of  this  century.  In  the 
confession  of  faith  which  he  submitted  to  the  Bishop  of 
Home,  we  find  the  following  article  :  '  We  hold  one  haptismj 
ichich  ice  ajfirm  must  he  adniiniUered  with  the  same  sac7'a- 
mental  words  to  infants  loith  which  it  is  to  elder  persons.' 
Augustin,  his  great  opponent  in  the  controversy  which  agi- 
tated the  whole  Church  at  that  time,  quotes  Pelagius  as  say- 
ing :  '■  He  never  heard  even  of  any  impious  heretic  who 
would  avow  such  a  thing  in  regard  to  little  children  ]  for 
who  is  there  so  ignorant  of  gospel  readivy,  that  he  would, 
not  to  say  venture  to  affirm  this,  but  even  in  a  heedless  way 
say  or  indeed  tliink  such  a  thing  ?  In  a  word,  who  can  be 
so  impious  as  to  wish  little  cliildren  not  to  be  sharers  in  the 
kingdom  of  heaven,  and  so  forbid  them  to  be  baptized  and 
regenerated  in  Christ  V  80  you  see,  Thcophilus,  the  Bap- 
tists must  have  been  very  scarce  in  the  fourth  century,  or 
16* 


370  THEOPHiLus   avalton;   or, 

PelagiuSj  a  man  of  extensive  learning,  would  certainly  have 
heard  of  them.  He  tells  us  that  the  most  impious  heretics 
do  not  deny  that  infants  ought  to  be  baptized.  Where, 
then,  were  the  Baptists  ?  Do  you  suppose  that  a  man  who 
had  travelled  nearly  or  quite  over  the  whole  Christian  world, 
would  never  come  in  contact  with  a  Baptist  teacher,  or  even 
hear  of  such  a  one  in  his  travels  ?  Moreover,  when  we 
consider  that  he  lived  but  three  hundred  years  after  the 
times  of  the  apostles,  in  a  period  when  the  writings  of  the 
first  Christians  were  abundant,  if  any  writer  or  minister  of 
note  had  ever  condemned  infant  baptism,  is  it  possible  that 
Pelagius  would  not  have  known  it  ?  The  case  of  Tertullian 
is  no  objection  to  this  view,  for,  as  I  shall  show  directly,  he 
did  not  condemn  the  baptism  of  infants  upon  the  ground 
that  it  did  them  no  good.,  which  is  the  position  of  the  Bap- 
tists, but  because,  according  to  his  mistaken  views,  baptism 
was  the  instrument  through  which  sins  were  pardoned,  and 
ought  to  be  delayed  as  long  as  possible,  inasmuch  as  sins 
committed  afterward  were  left  without  pardon. 

^' John  Chrysostom,  a  native  of  Antioch,  and  called  the 
^  golden-mouthed,'  on  account  of  his  surpassing  eloquence, 
writes  as  follows,  in  one  of  his  sermons  :  ^  But  our  circum- 
cision, the  grace  of  haptism,  gives  cure  without  pain,  and 
procures  for  us  a  thousand  benefits,  and  fills  us  with  the 
grace  of  the  Spirit.  And  it  has  no  determinate  time,  as  that 
had,  but  it  is  lawful  to  any  one  in  the  very  heginning  of  his 
age,  or  in  the  middle  of  it,  or  in  old  age,  to  receive  this  cir- 
cumcision made  without  hands.'  Here  you  will  perceive 
that  the  fathers  regarded  baptism  as  sustaining  the  same 
relation  to  the  Christian  that  circumcision  did  to  the  Jewish 
dispensation ;  and  the  essential  difi"erence  which  he  notices 
in  the  time  of  administering  the  rite,  is  the  fact  that  cir- 
cumcision was  by  special  enactment  confined  to  the  eighth 
day,  whereas  baptism  might  be  performed  in  the  veri/  begin- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  371 

ni7ig  of  age,  in  the  first  hour  of  existence.  There  can  be 
no  doubt  that  infant  baptism  was  in  use  in  Chrysostom's  time. 
If  it  were  necessary  to  give  further  evidence^  I  could  quote 
a  passage  from  another  sermon^  where  he  rebukes  a  supersti- 
tious practice  of  putting  mud  on  the  forehead  of  an  infant, 
to  keep  it  from  becoming  bewitched,  and  then  asks  how  they 
can  bring  their  children  to  be  baptized,  when  they  have  thus 
besmeared  them  with  mud. 

''  I  might  quote  Jerome,  Optatus,  Grregory  Naziauzen,  and 
Basil,  if  it  were  necessary ;  and  if  I  relied  upon  this  sort  of 
testimony  I  would  do  so.  All  that  I  wish  to  do  is  to  show 
that  the  practice  of  infant  baptism  was  recognized  in  the 
early  Church.  To  prove  whether  or  not  that  practice  was 
according  to  the  mind  of  Christ,  of  course  we  must  go  to 
the  Bible. 

'^Let  us,  for  the  present,  inquire  if  there  is  any  testi- 
mony in  the  third  century  to  the  custom  of  the  Church  in 
this  regard.  In  a  council  of  sixty-six  bishops,  held  in  or 
about  the  year  A!  D.  250,  a  question  was  proposed  by  one 
Fidus,  by  letter,  whether  or  not  infants  might  be  baptized 
as  soon  as  they  are  born.  In  reply  these  bishops  say  :  ^  We 
read  j^our  letter,  most  dear  brother,  in  which  you  write  of 
one  Victor,  a  priest,  etc.  But  as  to  the  case  of  infants: 
whereas  you  judge  that  they  must  not  be  baptized  within 
two  or  three  days  after  they  are  born ;  and  that  the  rule  of 
circumcision  is  to  be  observed,  so  that  none  should  be  hai^- 
tized  and  sanctified  before  the  eighth  day  after  he  is  born ; 
we  were  all  in  our  assembly  of  the  contrary  opinion.  For 
as  for  what  you  thought  fitting  to  be  done,  there  was  not 
one  that  was  of  your  mind ;  but  all  of  us,  on  the  contrary, 
judged  that  the  grace  and  mercy  of  Grod  is  to  be  denied  to 
no  person  that  is  born.^  Now  we  have  nothing  in  the  world 
to  do  with  the  object  for  which  these  men  baptized  infants; 
for  it  is  plain  that  they  believed  that  all  infants  who  died 


872  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

without  baptism  were  lost.  It  does  not  weigli  a  feather  in 
the  balance  against  my  opinion,  that  their  doctrine  was 
wrong,  so  far  as  the  design  and  effects  of  baptism  were  con- 
cerned. Their  evidence  is  only  valuable  as  it  proves  the 
fact  that  infants  were  baptized.  It  is  no  more  an  argument 
against  the  baptism  of  infants  that  these  men  believed  that 
they  were  saved  by  baptism,  than  it  is  against  the  baptism 
of  adults,  for  they  too,  according  to  these  fathers,  were  con- 
verted, ^  sealed/  '  sanctified,'  ^  regenerated'  in  baptism,  and 
dying  without  it  were  lost.  The  design  of  the  ordinance 
was  corrupted  in  both  cases,  and  baptismal  regeneration  is 
no  more  the  parent  of  infant  than  of  adult  baptism. 

'^  It  is  amusing  to  see  how  these  descendants  of  Roger 
Williams  and  John  Smyth,  of  Holland,  twist  and  turn  about 
when  they  get  into  the  first  centuries  of  the  Christian  era. 
When  the  mode  of  baptism  is  in  dispute,  they  appropriate 
certain  allusions  to  trine  immersion,  and  cry  out.  The 
fathers  were  Baptists  I  But  when  we  draw  them  up  to  the 
record,  and  show  them  that  these  '  fathei's'  practiced  infant 
baptism,  they  cry  out,  Heretics !  heretics !  corrupters  of 
God's  word  and  of  his  ordinance  !  Our  friend  Theodosia, 
on  page  167,  asserts:  ^  I  say  the  Christian  fathers  for  the 
first  tliree  centuries  were  Bcqjtists,  because  these  fathers  say  so 
themselves.'  But  on  page  334  we  find  this  same  author 
asserting,  '  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  at  this  time,  the 
beginning  of  the  third  century,  the  baptism  of  children  had 
just  begun  to  be  spoken  of.'  How  it  happens  that  Baptist 
'  fathers'  in  the  third  century  could  practice  infant  baptism 
is  indeed  a  mystery,  if  the  term  '  Baptist'  is  not  large 
enough  to  take  contrary  doctrines  and  every  sort  of  heresy 
into  fellowship.  The  author  is  consistent  in  one  thing, 
however,  in  making  these  contradictory  statements  :  there  is 
not  one  word  of  truth  in  either  of  them. 

'^  '  Matthew,  and  Mark,  and  Luke,  and  John  were  Bap- 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  373 

tists,^  says  Theodosia;  and  why?  because  otherwise  ^  they 
might  never  have  told  us  about  those  baptisms  in  the 
river  !'  Sublime  logic,  is  it  not  ?  Then  the  author  of  the 
Acts  of  the  Apostles  was  not  a  Baptist;  for,  although  he 
speaks  of  numerous  baptisms,  he  never  once  mentions  that 
one  of  them  was  in  a  river.  '  Baptists  tell  about  such 
things  now.'  Yes,  indeed  they  do ;  and  they  tell  it  over 
and  over  again,  just  as  often  as  a  case  of  immersion  trans- 
pires— '  buried  in  the  yielding  wave,'  in  such  a  river,  creek, 
or 2^00! — but  in  all  the  Holy  Scriptures  there  is  but  one 
solitary  case  of  baptism  in  a  river,  creek,  tank,  or  pool  men- 
tioned, although  scores  of  baptisms  are  recorded.  And  yet 
conduct  and  speech  so  unlike,  prove  the  conflicting  parties 
the  same.  '  Paul  was  a  Baptist !'  cries  Theodosia.  Yet  he 
says  to  the  Corinthians,  '  Christ  sent  me  not  to  baptize,  hut  to 
preach  the  gospel.^  Imagine  a  Baptist  preacher  making  such 
a  declaration  in  these  days.  Why,  he  would  have  '  the 
Churches'  down  upon  him  from  the  most  northern  limits  of 
Dan  to  the  extremity  of  Beersheba !  But  enough  of 
Theodosia's  nonsense.  It  may  have  weight  with  the  igno- 
rant, and,  with  such,  solid  argument  is  '•  a  jewel  of  gold  in  a 
swine's  snout.' 

^^  We  come  now  to  examine  for  a  short  time  the  testimony 
of  the  first  opponent  of  infant  baptism  on  record.  Accord- 
ing to  Theodosia  he  was  a  Baptist,  for  he  lived  in  the  com- 
mencement of  the  tliird  century.  I  allude  to  Tertullian. 
He  is  the  first  writer  in  the  Christian  Church,  orthodox  or 
otherwise,  who  opposed  the  baptism  of  infants.  And,  be- 
cause he  has  left  us  his  protest  against  the  doctrine,  it  is 
inferred  by  the  Baptists  that  infant  baptism  was  just  then 
gaining  a  foothold  in  the  Church.  The  fallacy  of  such  an 
argument  is  plain.  Now  this  Tertullian,  though  in  many  re- 
spects  an  able  and  a  learned  man,  was,  nevertheless,  visionary 
and  speculative  above  all  the  rest  of  the  so-called  ^  fathers.' 


874  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

He  believed  that  one  Montanus  was  the  Paraclete,  or  Com- 
forter, which  Christ  promised  to  send  to  his  disciples,  main- 
taining that  the  Holy  Grhost  was  come  in  the  person  of  this 
vile  impostor.  Tertullian  joined  the  Montanists,  and  after- 
ward set  up  for  himself,  and  raised  a  sect,  called  after  him 
Tertullianists.  If  you  will  read  the  history  of  the  Church 
at  this  period,  and  for  ages  following,  you  will  find  that  this 
man  was  of  about  as  much  weight  and  force  in  matters  of 
opinion  with  the  Christian  world,  as  Brigham  Young  is 
to-day  with  the  Protestant  denominations  in  this  country. 
Indeed,  I  could  show  you,  if  I  had  time,  that  he  was  just 
about  as  much  of  a  Christian  as  the  present  leader  of  the 
Mormon  Church.  Brigham  Young  had  his  Joe  Smith,  Vfho 
was  prophet,  priest,  and  king;  and  Tertullian  had  his  Mon- 
tanus, to  whom  he  attributed  the  possession  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  incarnation  of  the  Spirit.  His  ojyinion  is  of  no 
force;  let  us  see  if  he  declares  any  fact  which  militates 
against  infant  baptism  as  if  it  were  an  innovation,  or  not 
hitherto,  before  his  time,  practiced  in  the  Church.  In  his 
treatise  on  Baptism  he  says  :  '  Whereas  it  is  an  acknow- 
ledged rule  that  none  can  be  saved  without  baptism — 
grounded  especially  on  that  sentence  of  our  Lord,  Urdess 
one  be  born  of  loater  he  cannot  be  saved — some  scruples  do 
arise,  and  even  rash  discourses  of  some  men,  how,  according 
to  that  rule,  the  apostles  could  be  saved,  whom  we  do  not 
find  to  have  been  baptized  with  our  Lord's  baptism,  except 
Paul.'  '' 

^^  I  should  think  those  sentiments  would  be  enough  to 
expel  one  from  the  Baptist  Church  noiv,''  observed  Theophi- 
lus.  ^^  He  contends  that  it  is  an  acknowledged  rule  that 
none  can  be  saved  who  are  not  baptized — that  is  rather  too 
strong  for  modern  Baptists.  Then,  again,  he  declares  that 
the  apostles  did  not  receive  Christian  baptism — that's  an- 
other crime.     They  would  hurl  Tertullian  out  of  the  Bap- 


THE    MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  StD 

tist  Churcli  now  as  readil}^  as  they  excommunicate  Robert 
Hall  for  holding  the  same  opinion/^ 

"  Yet  we  are  told,  Theophilus,  that  Tertullian  was  a  Bap- 
tist. And  yet  Robinson,  the  Baptist  historian,  tells  us- that 
infant  baptism  originated  among  the  Montanists,  among 
whom  this  good  Baptist  brother,  Tertullian,  held  his  mem- 
bership a  considerable  time.  Such  is  the  liarmony  of  our 
asjjirinrj  Baptist  authors. 

''  You  will  remember,  Theophilus,  that  I  took  occasion  a 
few  evenings  since  to  expose  a  quotation  garbled  from  Dr. 
Wall,  and  patched  together  by  the  author  of  Theodosia.  It 
becomes  my  duty  to  make  a  similar  exposure  of  the  igno- 
rancG  if  not  the  iniquiti/  of  that  writer.  I  know  it  sounds 
harshly  to  charge  a  writer  on  sacred  subjects  with  dishon- 
esty; but  when  a  statement  is  made  with  confidence,  and 
with  the  air  of  learning,  the  exposure  of  the  imposture  be- 
comes a  duty ;  and  no  terms  can  be  too  severe  which  are 
employed  in  the  operation  of  removing  the  sheep's  clothing 
from  the  body  of  a  wolf.  For  the  sake  of  convenience,  you 
will  oblige  me  by  taking  ^  Theodosia  Ernest,'  and  reading 
the  passage  I  have  marked  on  page  332.'' 

^^  ^  By  this  time  salvation  and  baptism  had  begun  to  be 
regarded  as  inseparable,  and  loving  parents  began  to  inquire 
anxiously,  What  will  become  of  our  children  if  they  die 
uubaptized  ?  To  this  the  answer  commonly  given  was  that 
they  must  be  lost.  Why  not,  then,  baptize,  and  so  secure 
their  salvation  ?  It  seems  that  a  certain  loealtliy  lady, 
named  Quintilla,  wlio  was  prohahly  a  mother,  and  felt  this 
very  natural  anxiety  ahout  her  little  ones.,  had  come  to  the 
conclusion  that  if  they  ASKED /b?'  baptism  they  ought  to  have 
it,  whether  they  gave  evidence  of  conversion  or  not ;  and  she 
wrote  a  letter  to  Tertullian,  the  bishop  of  the  Ohurch  at  Car- 
thage, to  get  his  sanction  to  this  novel  doctrine.  The  answer 
of  Tertullian  to  this  letter  has  been  preserved,  and  contains 


376  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

the  FIRST  undouhted  allu&ion  to  tlie  haptism  of  children 
which  is  recorded  in  the  annals  of  Church  history.'  '' 

"  Now,  Theopliilus,  it  will  not  surprise  you  to  learn  that 
the  whole  of  that  story  is  a  sheer  fabrication.  I  say  it  will 
not  S2ir2yrise  you  to  hear  this,  from  the  simple  fact  that  this 
author's  conscience  seems  to  be  utterly  incapable  of  prevent- 
ing his  acts  of  literary  piracy.  This  story  of  Quintilla  and 
her  letter  to  Tertullian  must  have  occurred  to  the  writer  in  a 
dream,  a  vision  of  the  night,  after  he  had  worked  himself 
up  to  frenzy  over  '  Orchard's  History  of  Foreign  Baptists.' 
You  see  what  a  clumsy  story  he  makes  of  it.  Quintilla,  be- 
lieving that  her  children  might  perish  without  baptism, 
writes  to  the  '  bishop'  of  Carthage,  to  know  whether  they 
might  be  baptized,  if  they  asked  for  it,  without  being  con- 
verted. This  icas,  indeed,  a  novel  doctrine ;  it  would  have 
been  to  Tertullian,  for  he  believed  that  all  the  sins,  actual 
and  original,  of  a  person  were  pardoned  in  the  act  of  bap- 
tism. Tertullian  did  not  believe  in  conversion  preceding 
baptism,  and  therefore  the  want  of  it  could  be  no  bar  to  the 
ordinance.  But  why  do  I  weary  your  patience  by  showing 
the  internal  evidence  that  this  story  is  fabricated  for  Theo- 
dosia's  purpose  ?  The  fact  is  plain  enough.  The  garbled 
extracts  which  the  writer  proceeds  to  give,  are  originally 
from  Tertullian' s  treatise  on  Baptism,  the  very  same  from 
which  I  quoted  just  now.  ^Quintilla/  the  ^wealthy  lady,' 
has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  it.  The  passage  is  not  a 
^  reply'  to  anybody's  letter,  but  a  distinct  and  labored  trea- 
tise on  Baptism. 

'^  I  suspect  that  this  author,  who,  for  wise  reasons,  gives  us 
no  clue  to  his  whereabouts,  has  seen  in  the  '  Religious  Ency- 
clopedia' a  reference  to  one  Quintilla,  who  flourished  about 
A.  D.  190  as  a  prophetess  in  Asia  Minor,  and  the  thought 
occurred  to  him  that  he  would  get  up  a  correspondence 
between  this  female  impostor  in  Phrygia  and  Tertullian  iu 


THE     3IAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  377 

Africa.  His  object  is  to  show  that  the  baptism  of  unconverted 
or  infant  children  was  a  novel  one  in  Tertullian's  time ;  and 
he  frames  the  story  accordingly.  If  this  history  is  not 
original  with  him,  I  know  not  who  else  could  be  bold 
enough  to  manufacture  it.  Certainly  Orchard,  with  all  his 
hardihood,  never  thought  of  it. 

'^But  as  I  have  undertaken  to  show  the  imposition  prac- 
ticed by  Theodosia,  let  us  compare  the  two  passages  toge- 
ther. I  have  Tertullian's  treatise,  De  Ba/ptismo,  in  my 
hand.  Do  you  read  out  of  Theodosia,  Theophilus,  and  I 
will  read  out  of  Tertullian.'' 

"  I  will  commence  with  the  quotation  marks,"  said  Theo- 
philus. "  '  Those  who  administer  baptism,  says  he,  know 
very  well  that  it  is  not  to  be  rashly  given.'  So  says  Theo- 
dosia." 

^^And  Tertullian  says,  'But  they  whose  duty  it  is  to 
administer  baptism  are  to  know  that  it  must  not  be  given 
rashly.'     Proceed,  Theophilus." 

"  '  The  good  lady  evidently  thought  that  it  was  enough  if 
the  children  could  ask  for  it,  and  had  quoted  the  scripture. 
Give  to  him  that  asketh.  To  this  Tertullian  says  :  What ! 
give  to  him  that  asheth  !  Every  one  hath  a  right  to  it  as  a 
thing  of  alms.  Nay  !  say  rather,  Give  not  that  lohich  is  holy 
to  the  dogs;  cast  7iot  your  pearls  before  swine;  lay  hands 
suddenly  on  no  man;  he  not  partaker  of  other  men's  siiis.'  " 
—  Tertullian,  as  quoted  in  Theodosia  Ernest. 

^'  Now  let  us  hear  the  genuine  quotation  :  '  Give  to  every 
one  that  asketh  thee,  has  its  proper  subject,  and  relates  to 
alms-giving;  but  that  command  rather  is  here  to  be  consi- 
dered. Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to  dogs,  neither  cast 
your  pearls  before  swine ;  and  that.  Lay  hands  suddenly  on 
no  man,  neither  be  partaker  of  other  men's  faults.'  " — ■ 
Tertidlianus  De  Bajitismo,  c.  18. 
"  I  see  how  it  is,  Mr.  Mason,"  observed  Theophilus,  ''the 


378  TIIEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

language  of  Tertullian  is  so  distorted  as  to  make  it  look  like 
a  re'ply  to  this  imaginary  letter.'' 

'■'■  Precisely  so,  Theopliilus.     But  read  on." 

'•^  '  It  would  seem  tliat  slie  had  referred  to  the  cases  of  the 
eunuch  and  of  Paul,  as  haying  received  the  ordinance  as 
soon  as  they  asked  for  it.  And  to  this  Tertullian  replies  : 
If  Philip  baptized  the  eunuch  on  the  spot,  let  us  remember 
that  it  was  done  under  the  immediate  direction  of  the  Lord. 
The  eunuch  was  a  believer  of  the  Scripture;  the  instruction 
given  by  Philip  was  seasonable;  the  one  preached,  the 
other  perceived  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  believed  on  him. 
Water  was  at  hand,  and  the  apostle  having  finished  the 
affair,  was  caught  away.  But  you  say  Paul  was  baptized 
instantly.  True,  because  Judas,  at  whose  house  he  was, 
instantly  knew  that  he  was  a  vessel  of  mercy.  The  conde- 
scension of  God  may  confer  his  favors  as  he  pleases,  but  our 
wishes  may  mislead  ourselves  and  others.'  " — Tertullian^ 
quoted  in  Theodosia. 

^'  Read  on,  Theophilus." 

^'  ^  This  lady  seems  to  have  referred,  as  you  do,  to  the 
words  of  Jesus,  ^'  Suffer  little  children,"  etc.  And  to  this 
Tertullian  says,  as  Baptists  do  now,  The  Lord  does  indeed 
say,  Forbid  them  not  to  come  unto  me ;  and  let  them  come 
while  they  are  growing  up ;  let  them  come  and  learn,  and 
let  them  be  instructed  when  they  come,  arid  lohen  they 
understand  Christianity  let  them  profess  themselves  Chris- 
tians.^ " — Tertullian,  quoted  in  Theodosia. 

^'  Now  let  us  hear  Tertullian :  ^  Our  Lord  says,  indeed, 
Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to  me.  Therefore  let  them  come 
when  they  are  grown  up ;  let  them  come  when  they  under- 
stand ;  when  they  are  instructed  whither  it  is  that  they 
come;  let  them  be  made  Christians  when  they  can  hnow 
Christ.^  Now,  Theophilus,  don't  you  see  the  difference  be- 
tween these  two  passages  ?      Theodosia   makes   Tertullian 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  879 

say  that  tliey  must  pro/ess  theuLselves  Christians  when  they 
can  understand  Christianity;  whereas  Tertullian  says  they 
should  he  made  Christians  (by  baptism)  when  they  can 
know  Christ.  You  see  our  unscrupulous  author  has  sup- 
pressed Tertullian's  belief  in  baptismal  regeneration. 

'^But  I  will  read  on.  Theodosia  stopped  too  soon. 
^  What  need  their  guiltless  age  make  such  haste  to  the  for- 
giveness of  sins  ?  Men  will  proceed  more  warily  in  worldly 
things;  and  he  that  should  not  have  earthly  goods  commit- 
ted to  him,  yet  shall  have  heavenly.  Let  them  know  how 
to  desire  this  salvation,  that  you  may  appear  to  have  given 
to  one  that  asketh.  For  no  less  reason  unmarried  persons 
ought  to  be  kept  off,  who  are  likely  to  come  into  temptation, 
as  well  those  that  never  were  married,  upon  account  of 
their  coming  to  ripeness,  as  those  in  widowhood  for  the  miss 
of  their  partner  :  until  they  either  marry  or  be  confirmed  in 
continence.  They  that  understand  the  weight  of  baptism 
will  rather  dread  the  receiving  it  than  the  delaying  of  it. 
An  entire  faith  is  secure  of  salvation.' — Tertul.  De  Bap- 
tismo,  c.  18. 

"  Of  course,  our  fair  friend  Theodosia  never  dreamed  that 
her  venerable  Baptist  brother,  Tertullian,  would  have  refused 
to  baptize  her,  if  she  had  applied  to  him  !  This  important 
information  the  ingenious  inventor  of  the  ^  Quintilla'  story 
kept  out  of  view !  And  such  is  the  moral  honesty  of  the 
opponents  of  infant  baptism !  A  certain  '  father'  says 
infants  ought  not  to  be  baptized,  because  they  would  be 
making  haste  to  have  their  sins  forgiven  ;  and  therefore,  say 
the  Baptists,  as  this  is  a  clear  case  of  prohibition  and  oppo- 
sition to  infant  baptism,  infants  loere  not  baptized  before  the 
time  of  Tertullian,  This  is  the  argument.  There  is  no 
logic  or  good  sense  in  it,  but  let  us  admit  for  a  moment  that 
it  is  a  good  argument ;  then  we  extend  it  a  step  farther. 
This  same  '  father,'  for  this  very  reason,  forbids  the  bap- 


380  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

tism  of  unmarried  persons;  liis  opposition  to  it  is,  there- 
fore, proof  that  no  unmarried  persons  were  baptized  before 
his  time  !  Will  our  Baptist  friends  follow  the  advice  of 
their  eccentric  brother,  or  will  they  only  take  half  of  it  ? 
If  so,  why  should  they  blame  us  if  we  refuse  to  take  any  of 
it,  and  regard  him  as  visionary  in  the  first  case  as  in  the 
last?" 

^'  But  has  Theodosia  no  authority  for  this  story  about 
Quintilla  and  Tertullian,  Mr.  Mason  ?  Surely  the  author 
must  have  seen  something  to  warrant  him  in  making  the 
statement/' 

'^  I  have  seen  nothing  which  resembles  a  correspondence 
between  the  parties,  Theophilus.  There  was  a  Quintilla,  a 
female  preacher  and  a  prophetess  of  some  note  in  Tertul- 
lian's  time,  but  as  to  her  writing  a  letter  to  Tertullian,  and 
his  making  the  reply  given  by  Theodosia,  I  do  not  believe  a 
word  of  it.  She  was  not  a  '  wealthy  lady,'  who  had  become 
concerned  about  her  children,  as  Theodosia  states,  but  an 
impostor  connected  with  the  sect  of  the  Montanists.  It  is 
said  that  this  Quintilla  preached  against  baptism,  as  wholly 
unnecessary,  and  against  this  doctrine  the  book  of  Tertullian 
was  written.  The  effort  of  Theodosia  is  designed  to  create 
the  impression  that  this  ^  wealthy  lady'  became  alarmed  at 
the  idea  of  her  children  being  in  danger  of  dying  without 
baptism,  and  to  secure  their  salvation  she  proposes  to  have 
them  baptized,  contrary  to  the  established  usage  of  the 
Church.  Her  application  to  Tertullian,  and  his  reply,  are 
manufactured  to  order,  as  the  first  proposal  to  baptize 
infants. 

"But  let  us  leave  Quintilla  and  Tertullian.  We  must 
advance  a  little  nearer  to  the  apostolic  age.  A  peculiarity 
in  the  few  writings  which  we  possess  of  the  second  century 
is,  that  the  terms  baptize  and  regenerate  are  used  inter- 
changeably.    I  say  that  this  is  a  peculiarity,  not  because  the 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         381 

'fathers'  generally  are  free  from  the  error  of  baptismal 
regeneration,  but  because  tliey  usually  distinguislied  between 
the  ordinance  and  its  supposed  effect — the  first  was  baptism, 
the  last  was  regeneration.  But  as  early  as  the  second  cen- 
tury, the  doctrine  of  the  new  birth  of  the  soul  in  water  had 
obtained  such  a  firm  footing  that  the  word  regeneration  sig- 
nified baptism,  as  there  could  be  no  new  birth  without  it. 
It  is  needless  to  prove  this,  which  I  might  do  by  quotations 
from  Clemens  Alexandrinus  and  Justin  Martyr,  but  the  fact 
is  admitted  by  all  honest  and  competent  judges.  It  is  true, 
the  author  of  Theodosia  sneers  at  it,  but  this  is  rather  a  proof 
that  the  fact  asserted  is  beyond  cavil,  as  that  author  gene- 
rally manufactures  his  own  history,  and  when  he  can  find  no 
accommodating  Quintilla  to  help  him  out  of  difficulty,  he 
scofi's  at  the  passage,  and  makes  Theodosia  laugh  at  it,  and  so 
the  matter  is  disposed  of. 

^^  Keeping  this  fact  in  mind,  let  us  hear  the  testimony  of 
Irenseus,  who  lived  A.  D.  167  :  ^  Therefore  as  he  was  a  Mas- 
ter, he  had  also  the  age  of  a  Master.  Not  disdaining  nor 
going  in  a  way  above  human  nature,  nor  breaking  in  his 
own  person  the  law  which  he  had  set  for  mankind,  but 
sanctifying  every  several  age  by  .the  likeness  that  it  has  to 
him.  For  he  came  to  save  all  persons  by  himself :  all,  I 
mean,  who  are  by  him  regenerated  (or  baptized)  unto  God, 
infa.nts  and  little  ones,  and  children  and  youths,  and  elder 
persons :  (info.ntes,  et  parvulos,  et  pueros,  et  Juvenes,  et 
seniores.)  Therefore  he  went  through  the  several  ages  :  for 
'in/ants  heing  made  an  infant,  sanctifying  infants;  to  little 
ones  he  was  made  a  little  one,  sanctifying  those  of  that  age, 
and  also  giving  them  an  example  of  godliness,  justice,  and 
dutifulness;  to  youths  he  was  a  youth,'  etc." — Iren^eus,  adv. 
Haereses. 

'^  That  appears  to  be  very  strong,"  said  Theophilus.  "  If 
Irenaeus  used  '  regenerate'  for  baptize,  which  he  must  have 


382  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

done  or  the  passage  lias  no  sense  in  it,  then  it  is  clear  infants 
were  baptized  in  his  days,  because  he  says  they  were  regene- 
rated to  G-od.'' 

''And  in  what  other  sense  could  Irenaeus  use  the  word 
'  regenerate'  here  ?  Infants  could  not  be  regenerated  by 
faith,  it  is  clear,  so  that  whatever  he  means  to  be  understood 
by  regeneration,  he  could  refer  it  only  to  baptism.  But  to 
prove  this  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt,  a  quotation  from  Jus- 
tin Martyr,  who  lived  about  the  same  time,  or  a  little  earlier, 
will  be  sufficient.  Speaking  of  the  manner  of  baptizing 
their  converts,  he  says  :  '  Then  we  bring  them  to  some  place 
where  there  is  water,  and  they  are  regenerated  by  the  same 
way  of  regeneration  by  which  we  are  regenerated ;  for  they 
are  washed  loith  ivater  in  the  name  of  God,  the  Father  and 
Lord  of  all  things,  and  of  our  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  of 
the  Holy  Spirit.'  Now,  Theophilus,  can  any  one  deny  that 
Justin  Martyr  called  baptism  '  regeneration  V  Is  it  not  as 
j)lain  as  language  can  make  it  ? 

"  This  very  passage  is  quoted  by  '  Theodosia  Ernest'  on 
pages  167,  168,  as  you  will  see  by  turning  to  the  book,  and 
the  author  does  not  scruple  to  say  that  Justin  speaks  of  per- 
sons baptized  as  persons  regenerated  ;  but  when  he  meets  the 
testimony  of  Irenaeus,  proving  that  infants  were  'regene- 
rated' in  those  days,  he  ridicules  the  idea !  Hear  him,  on 
page  331 ;  after  quoting  the  '  father,'  he  says  :  '  Now  this  is 
the  ojd^  allusion  which  it  is  pretended  that  Irenaeus  makes 
to  infant  baptism ;  and  some  have  had  the  temerity,  not  to 
say  the  dishonesty — since  they  themselves  consider  baptism 
and  regeneration  as  the  same  thing,  and  because  Irenseus,  in 
some  other  place,  uses  regenerate  in  the  sense  of  baptize — 
to  strike  out  regenerated  here  and  put  in  haj)tized,  and  then 
refer  to  Irena3us  as  having  recognized  infant  baptism.' 

"  There  is  a  twofold  deception  in  these  words.  In  the 
first  place,  the  writer  would  have  us  believe  that  only  once 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  383 

the  word  ^regenerate'  is  put  for  'baptize'  in  Irenaeus, 
whereas  there  are  many  instances  in  his  writings  of  such 
interchangeable  use.  In  the  next  pLnce,  he  asserts  that 
those  who  thus  understand  the  passage  do  themselves  regard 
baptism  and  regeneration  as  the  same  thing.  If  this  be  so, 
the  author  of  Thcodosia  believes  that  they  are  one  and  the 
same,  for  he  quotes  the  words  of  Justin  Martyr,  who  uses 
them  precisely  as  Iren^us  does.  But,  as  we  say,  '  circum- 
stances alter  cases  :'  Justin's  words  were  in  '  Theodosia's' 
favor — so  the  author  supposed  at  least — and  therefore  it  is  all 
right.  But  Irena3us,  by  the  same  method  of  interpretation, 
proves  infant  baptism  to  be  the  practice  of  the  Church  in 
the  second  century,  and  therefore  the  interpretation  is 
wrong.  Thus  does  this  candid  (  !  )  writer  blow  hot  and 
cold  with  the  same  breath. 

''  Justin  Martyr,  in  his  dialogue  with  Trypho,  calls  bap- 
tism the  Christian  circumcision,  as  follows  :  '  We  also  who 
by  him  have  access  to  God,  have  not  received  this  carnal 
circumcision,  but  the  spiritual  circumcision  which  Enoch 
and  those  like  him  observed.  And  ive  have  received  it  J>y 
haptism,  by  the  mercy  of  God,  because  we  were  sinners  ; 
and  it  is  allowed  to  all  j^crsons  to  receive  it  by  the  same 
way.' 

"  I  might  give  you  many  other  quotations  out  of  Clement 
and  Hermas,  but  the  testimony  of  Justin  Martyr  brings  us 
within  forty  years  of  the  times  of  the  apostles.  Is  it  rea- 
sonable to  suppose  that  infant  baptism  sprang  up  in  the 
Church  within  the  lifetime  of  one  man,  and  that  it  was  then 
regarded  as  an  innovation,  without  one  word  on  record  to 
prove  such  a  thing  ?  Is  it  possible  to  adduce  testimony 
more  explicit,  when  the  first  opponent  of  infant  baptism  in 
the  third  century  does  not  deny  that  it  was  the  custom  of 
the  Church,  or  charge  upon  the  practice  that  it  is  an  inno- 
vation, if  such  had  been  the  fact  ?'' 


884  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

^^  But  I  believe  you  have  charged  all  of  these  writers  with 
corrupting  the  ordinance  of  baptism,  Mr.  Mason/'  remarked 
Theophilus.  '•'■  If  they  corrupted  the  design  and  the  mode, 
may  they  not  have  enlarged  the  subjects  also  ?" 

"  I  do  not  think  it  so  probable,  Theophilus ;  but  remem- 
ber, I  told  you  at  the  commencement  that  I  do  not  rel^ 
upon  the  testimony  of  these  '  fathers'  alone ;  if  they  are  not 
sustained  by  the  Scriptures,  their  testimony  is  worth  nothing. 
To  the  word  of  Grod  we  must  now  appeal,  and  by  that  word 
settle  the  question.  I  would  no  sooner  practice  infant  bap- 
tism upon  the  faith  of  these  fathers,  than  I  would  receive 
their  views  of  baptismal  regeneration.  Their  authority,  in 
either  case,  unsupported  by  the  New  Testament,  must  be 
rejected. 

"  Let  us  examine  the  Bible,  then,  and  if  we  find  there  no 
sufficient  proof  that  infant  children  are  suitable  subjects  for 
baptism,  we  must  abandon  the  practice.  I  would  be  pleased, 
Theophilus,  if  you  would  state  to  me,  in  regular  order,  all 
the  objections  which  you  have  against  infant  baptism,  that  I 
may  be  able  to  give  you  at  once  the  proofs  upon  which  we 
rely.  Before  you  do  so,  however,  allow  me  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion. Do  you  believe  that  God  has  established  more  than 
one  distinct  Church  V 

"  I  should  think  he  had  established  but  one  gospel 
Church,"  replied  Theophilus. 

^^  Very  well;  the  reason  I  ask  you  this  question  is,  that 
some  Baptist  writers  attempt  to  prove  that  the  Mosaic  law 
was  a  collection  of  carnal  ordinances,  and  they  speak  of  the 
whole  dispensation  which  we  commonly  call  Jewish,  as  if  it 
were  the  work  of  man,  and  not  of  God.  They  speak  of 
Pedobaptists  as  engrafting  Judaism  upon  Christianity,  for- 
getting that  our  Saviour  himself,  according  to  the  flesh,  was 
a  Jew,  born  a  literal  descendant  of  Abraham.  More  than 
one  of  these  writers  attempts  to   throw  ridicule  upon   the 


THE    MAJESTY    OT    TRUTH.  885 

ceremonial  law,  and  the  enactments  under  the  legal  dispen- 
sationj  as  if  they  were  only  instituted  by  a  nation  of  super- 
stitious men.  I  need  not  tell  you,  however,  that  Moses  was 
only  the  servant  of  Grod,  and  delivered  the  law  as  the  Divine 
command,  and  whatever  is  contained  in  that  law  must  be 
fulfilled,  or  else  the  word  of  God  must  fail. 

^'You  have  said,  Theophilus,  that  there  was  but  one 
gospel  Church  :  when  was  that  Church  organized  ?" 

^'  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  I  suppose,''  replied  Theophilus. 

^'Well,  let  us  see,"  said  Mr.  Mason.  '^In  the  seventh 
chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  we  have  the  address  of 
St.  Stephen,  which  was  delivered  just  before  his  martyrdom. 
In  that  address,  or  sermon,  if  you  please,  Stephen  says  : 
^  This  is  that  Moses  which  said  unto  the  children  of  Israel, 
A  prophet  shall  the  Lord  your  God  raise  up  unto  you  of 
your  brethren,  like  unto  me ;  him  shall  ye  hear.  Tlih  is  he 
that  was  in  the  Church  m  the  wilderness,  luith  the  angel 
that  spahe  to  him  in  Mount  Sinai,  and  with  our  fathers ; 
who  received  the  lively  oracles  to  give  u7ito  us/  Here,  then, 
St.  Stephen  says,  *there  was  a  Church  in  the  wilderness,  in 
which  Moses  was  the  leader  of  God's  Israel." 

'^That  is  true,  Mr.  Mason;  but  is  not  the  word  here 
rendered  church  also  rendered  congregation  in  other  places, 
as  well  as  church  ?" 

^^Yery  well,  Theophilus.  All  I  want  to  prove  is  that 
this  church,  or  congregation  if  you  will,  had  the  gospel 
preached  to  them,  and  that  some  believed,  whilst  others 
believed  not.  Now  let  us  hear  what  Paul  says  about  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness. 
I  will  quote  from  the  latter  part  of  the  third  and  the  begin- 
ning of  the  fourth  chapter  of  the  letter  to  the  Hebrews. 
'  But  with  whom  was  he  grieved  forty  years  ?  Was  it  not 
with  them  that  had  sinned,  whose  carcasses  fell  in  the 
wilderness  ?  And  to  whom  sware  he  that  they  should  not 
17 


386  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

enter  into  his  rest^  but  to  tliem  that  believed  not  ?  So  we 
see  they  could  not  enter  in  because  of  unbelief.  Let  us 
therefore  fear,  lest,  a  promise  being  left  us  of  entering  into 
his  rest,  any  of  you  should  seem  to  come  short  of  it.  For 
unto  us  was  the  GOSPEL  jpreached,  as  well  as  unto  them; 
hut  the  word  preached  did  not  profit  tliem,  not  being  mixed 
with  faith  in  them  that  heard  it.'  Here  Paul  tells  us  that 
the  gospel  was  preached  to  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness, 
and,  because  of  their  unbelief,  they  entered  not  into  the 
promised  rest." 

"But  was  not  this  rest  only  a  deliverance  from  their 
enemies  in  Egypt,  Mr.  Mason  V 

"  I  will  let  Paul  answer  that  question.  He  says  a  little 
farther  on :  ^  Let  us  labor,  therefore,  to  enter  into  that  rest, 
lest  any  man  fall  after  the  same  exanfiple  of  unbelief  .'  " 

"But  may  it  not  be  said  still,"  continued  Theophilus, 
'^  that  Paul  only  compares  the  escape  of  the  Israelites 
from  Egypt  with  the  entrance  into  the  rest  of  the  Chris- 
tian ?" 

"  I  think  we  can  determine  that,  too.  If  we  can  ascertain 
whether  or  not  those  who  believed  in  the  wilderness  obtained 
a  truly  sjjiritual  rest,  then  we  shall  know  whether  those  who 
persisted  in  unbelief  forfeited  any  spiritual  blessing.  By 
turning  to  the  eleventh  chapter  of  Hebrews,  we  have  this 
question  also  settled,  as  plainly  as  words  can  do  it.  Paul 
says  :  •  By  faith,  Moses,  when  he  was  come  to  years,  refused 
to  be  called  the  son  of  Pharaoh's  daughter,  choosing  rather 
to  suffer  affliction  2vith  the  people  of  God,  than  to  enjoy  the 
pleasures  of  sin  for  a  season  ;  esteeming  THE  REPROACH  OP 
Christ  greater  riches  than  the  treasures  of  Ugi/j)t ;  for  he 
had  respect  unto  the  recompense  of  the  reward.'  Now,  then, 
Moses,  we  are  told,  preferred  the  '  reproach  of  Christ^  to  the 
treasures  of  Egypt.  Do  you  doubt  whether  Moses  was  a 
true  Christian  ?" 


THE     MAJESTY    OP    TRUTH.  387 

^^  I  am  surprised,  Mr.  Mason.  Why  have  I  not  seen  that 
passage  before  V 

"You  Jiave  seen  it,  often  enough,  Theophilus.  But  your 
preachers  have  taken  more  pains  to  show  what  Paul  meant 
by  being  ^buried  in  laj)tism/  than  they  have  to  exhibit 
Paul's  view  of  faith  and  the  gospel  of  Christ.  In  exact 
agreement  with  this  language  of  the  apostle  is  the  language 
of  our  Saviour  himself,  as  recorded  in  John  v.  39  :  '  Search 
the  Scriptures,  for  in  them  ye  think  ye  have  eternal  life ; 
and  they  are  they  ichich  testify  of  me.'  Christ  alluded  to 
the  Old  Testament  Scriptures,  of  course,  because  not  a  single  , 
book  of  the  JVew  Testament  was  then  written.  We  have, 
then,  a  Church  in  the  wilderness,  to  which  Moses  belonged,  as 
St.  Stephen  tells  us.  And  Moses  preferred  the  reproach  of 
Christ  in  this  Church,  to  whom  the  gosp)el  was  preached, 
according  to  St.  Paul.  Now,  then,  do  you  doubt  whether 
Moses  belonged  to  the  Church  of  God  ?" 

''I  confess  that  it  seems  to  be  plainly  stated,  Mr.  Mason. 
Of  course,  I  cannot  dispute  the  word  of  God.'' . 

"  Well,  then,  we  must  ascertain  when,  where,  and  how 
that  Church  was  organized.  Paul  must  assist  us  in  this 
inquiry.  In  his  letter  to  the  Galatiaus,  third  chapter,  he 
says  :  ^And  the  Scripture,  foreseeing  that  God  would  justify 
the  heathen  tlirough  faith,  preached  before  the  gospel  unto 
Abraham,  saying,  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed.'  Here, 
then,  the  apostle  declares  that  the  gospel  was  preached  to 
Abraham,  and  he  tells  us  precisely  what  that  gospel  was — it 
was  the  spiritual  promise  included  in  the  Abrahamic  cove- 
nant. We  must  go  to  the  covenant  made  with  Abraham,  then, 
in  order  to  find  the  time  when  this  Church  was  organized.'' 

'^But  did  not  the  dispensation  of  Moses  do  away  with  this 
Abrahamic  covenant,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

"  The  apostle  answers  your  question,  Theophilus,  in  these 
words :   ^And  this  I  say,  that  the  covenant  which  was  con- 


388  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

firmed  hefore  of  God  IN  Christ,  the  laiVj  whicli  was  four 
hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  cannot  disannul,  that  it 
should  make  the  promise  of  God  of  none  effect.'  Now  let 
us  ascertain  what  that  covenant  was,  for  Paul  tells  us  it  was 
the  gospel  preached  to  Abraham.  In  the  seventeenth  chap- 
ter of  Genesis  we  have  the  whole  account  of  this  covenant, 
hoiv  it  was  made,  and  ivho  were  the  parties  to  it.  It  was 
made  between  God  and  Abraham.  God  promised,  upon  his 
part,  to  be  a  God  to  Abraham  and  his  seed,  and  they  should 
receive  him  as  their  God.  In  token  of  this  covenant,  a  cer- 
tain sign  was  instituted  called  circumcision,  which  was  the 
visible  recognition  of  their  covenant  relation  to  God." 

^'  But  did  not  this  covenant  include  only  temporal  bless- 
ings, such  as  the  possession  of  Canaan,  and  a  numerous 
posterity  ?" 

"  I  have  just  shown  you  that  Paul  says  it  was  the  gospel 
preached  to  Abraham,  in  the  words :  ^  In  thee  shall  all 
nations  be  blessed.'  That  it  included  temporal  blessings,  I 
admit,  but  that  it  was  confined  to  them  is  flatly  contradicted 
by  the  apostle.  The  case  of  Moses  is  directly  in  point.  He 
is  said  to  have  preferred  the  reproach  of  Christ  to  the  trea- 
sures of  Egypt.  He  was  a  child  of  Abraham,  then,  for 
Paul  says  :  ^If  ye  he  Christ's,  then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed, 
and  heirs  according  to  the  promised  But  what  did  Moses 
inherit  ?  Not  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  he  never  set  his  foot 
there,  dying  just  before  the  Israelites  entered  it.  He  saw 
the  land,  but  he  did  not  '  go  up  and  possess  it.'  If  he  did 
not  obtain  the  sjnrifual  blessing  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant, 
he  obtained  nothing,  for  he  certainly  did  not  receive  the 
temporal  benefits. 

'^  But  we  are  not  left  without  testimony  from  the  Apostle 
Paul  on  this  point:  he  has  clearly  stated  that  the  blessings 
of  the  gospel  were  made  known  to  Abraham,  and  'Abraham 
believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  unto  him  for  righteous- 


THE    MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  389 

ness/  In  Romans  iv.  11,  the  apostle  informs  us  that  ^he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision,  a  seal  of  the  righteousness 
of  the  faith  which  he  had,  yet  being  uncircumcised,  that  he 
might  be  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe/  '  For  the  pro- 
mise, that  he  should  be  the  heir  of  the  world,  was  not  to 
Abraham,  or  to  his  seed,  through  the  laiu,  but  through  the 
righteousness  of  faith.'  '  Therefore  it  is  of  faith,  that  it 
might  be  by  grace,  to  the  end  the  promise  might  be  sure  to 
all  the  seed;  not  to  that  only  which  is  of  the  law,  but  to 
that  also  which  is  of  the  faith  of  Abraham,  who  is  the 
father  of  us  all/  And  in  Galatians,  third  chapter,  he  says : 
'  Know  ye,  therefore,  that  they  which  are  of  faith,  the  same 
are  the  children  of  Abraham/  Our  Lord  himself  tells  the 
wicked  Jews :  '  Your  father  Abraham  rejoiced  to  see  my 
day,  and  he  saw  it,  and  teas  glad.'  And  in  the  first  chapter 
of  Luke  we  have  the  language  of  Zacharias,  bearing  the 
same  testimony :  ^  Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  Israel,  for  he 
hath  visited  and  redeemed  his  people,  and  hath  raised  up  an 
horn  of  salvation  for  us  in  the  house  of  his  servant  David ; 
as  he  spake  by  the  mouth  of  his  holy  prophets,  ichich  have 
been  since  the  loorld  began,  that  we  should  be  saved  from  our 
enemies,  and  from  the  hand  of  all  that  hate  us;  to  per- 
form the  mercy  promised  to  our  fathers,  and  to  remember- 
his  holy  covenant,  the  oath  which  he  sioare  to  our  father 
Abraham.'  The  advent  of  Christ  was,  then,  according  to 
this  prophecy,  in  fulfilment  of  the  covenant  made  with 
Abraliam. 

^'  We  have  here,  then,  the  strongest  possible  representa- 
tion of  the  fact  that  the  essential  part  of  the  covenant  with 
Abraham  was  spiritual  in  its  nature  :  the  promise  giving 
assurance  of  spiritual  blessings,  and  Abraham  believing  the 
promise,  his  faith  was  counted  as  righteousness,  and  he 
received  the  sign  of  circumcision  as  a  seal  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  faith.     We  have  then  the  gospel  covenant,  the  visi- 


890 

ble  sign  of  that  covenant,  and  the  persons  to  whom  this  sign 
shall  be  given,  in  the  family  of  Abraham/^ 

^'  But  was  there  not  another  covenant  made  with  the 
children  of  Israel  which  supersedes  this  covenant  with 
Abraham  ?'' 

'^  No ;  Jeremiah  tells  us,  chapter  xxxi.  :  ^  Behold  the 
days  come,  saith  the  Lord,  that  I  will  make  a  new  covenant 
with  the  house  of  Israel  and  the  house  of  Judali ;  not 
according  to  the  covenant  that  I  made  with  their  fathers  in 
the  day  that  I  took  them  hy  the  hand  to  hring  them  out  of 
the  land  of  Egy])t ;  but  this  shall  be  the  covenant  that  I 
will  make  with  the  house  of  Israel :  After  those  days,  saith 
the  Lord,  I  will  put  my  law  in  their  inward  parts,  and  write 
it  in  their  hearts,  and  will  he  their  God,  and  they  shall  he 
my  people.'  Here  you  see  the  very  promise  made  to  Abra- 
ham is  made  again;  and  this  covenant,  which  is  called  a 
new  one,  is  not  placed  in  contrast  with  the  Abrahamic,  but 
with  the  covenant  made  when  the  Israelites  departed  from 
Egypt.  We  have  seen  already  that  the  apostle  directs  us  to 
Abraham,  as  the  father  of  the  faithful,  and  declares  that  the 
promise  made  to  him  belongs  to  all  who  become  his  child- 
ren by  faith.  I  think  that  I  have  clearly  established  these 
facts :  that  the  promise,  of  which  the  mediation  of  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  fuliSlment,  was  distinctly  made  to  Abraham ; 
that  he  believed  it,  became  thereby  a  servant  of  God,  and 
in  token  of  the  promise  received  circumcision  as  the  sign  of 
the  grace  and  the  seal  of  the  promise  made  to  him.  The 
Lord  distinctly  declared  that  it  should  be  an  everlasting 
covenant,  and  commanded  that  all  the  male  children  of  his 
family  should  receive  the  sign  instituted,  and  specified  the 
age  at  which  they  should  be  circumcised. 

*'  We  have  found  the  Church  established  in  the  house  of 
Abraham,  and  children  of  eight  days  old  are  declared  to  be 
fit  subjects  for  membership  in  it.     We  have  seen  the  apos- 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.  391 

tie  pointing  to  tliis  very  organization  as  having  the  promise 
of  the  gospelj  and  indeed  having  the  gospel  preached  in  it, 
and  to  the  members  of  it.  From  this  period,  then,  through 
all  the  changes  of  the  Jewish  state,  whether  in  royal  splen- 
dor, enjoying  the  favor  of  Grod  and  possessing  all  its  privi- 
leges, or  for  a  season  obscured,  because  of  their  wickedness, 
through  a  long  array  of  seers,  prophets,  and  teachers,  the 
one  great  idea  of  redemption  through  Jesus  Christ,  in 
accordance  with  the  promise  to  Abraham,  becomes  the 
absorbing  theme  of  inspiration.  In  the  sublime  poetry  of 
Job  we  hear  the  voice  of  faith  exclaiming :  '  I  know  that 
my  Kedeemer  liveth,  and  that  he  shall  stand  at  the  latter 
day  upon  the  earth.'  We  hear  the  sweet  singer  of  Israel 
supplicating  for  mercy  :  ^  Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  0 
God !  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me.  Cast  me  not 
away  from  thy  presence,  and  take  not  thy  Holy  Spirit  from 
me.  Restore  unto  me  the  joy  of  thy  salvation,  and  uphold 
me  with  thy  free  Spirit.'  We  hear  Isaiah  proclaiming  the 
offers  of  pardon  and  salvation  :  '  Seek  ye  the  Lord  while  he 
maybe  found,  call  ye  upon  him  while  he  is  near;  let  the 
wicked  forsake  his  way,  and  the  unrighteous  man  his 
thoughts,  and  let  him  return  unto  the  Lord,  and  he  will  have 
mercy  upon  him,  and  to  our  God,  for  he  will  abundantly 
pardon.'  And  as  we  approach  the  last  of  the  prophets,  the 
light  becomes  brighter,  and  the  glory  of  the  coming  king- 
dom of  Jesus  is  still  more  distinctly  portrayed.  Then  a 
long  night  of  captivity  and  disasters  comes  :  the  pen  of 
inspiration  is  motionless :  the  voice  of  the  prophet  is  heard 
no  more  in  the  land  :  the  last  favored  son  of  Heaven  has 
ascended  the  mount  of  inspiration,  and,  catching  a  view  of 
the  more  excellent  glory  soon  to  dawn  upon  the  seed  of 
Abraham,  sinks  again  into  the  vale  and  goes  to  his  reward; 
when  suddenly  the  Lord  whom  they  sought  returns  to  his 
temple,  the  star  of  Bethlehem   announces   his   birthplace, 


392  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

and  angel  visitors  proclaim  his  advent.  Then  the  prophet^s 
tongue  is  loosed  :  now,  says  the  father  of  the  forerunner. 
The  Lord  Grod  of  Israel  will  perform  his  covenant  made  to 
our  father  Abraham.  And  when  the  Holy  Grhost  is  poured 
out  upon  the  waiting  disciples  in  Jerusalem,  Peter  declares 
to  the  Jews  :  '  The  promise  is  unto  you^  and  your  cliihlren, 
and  to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our 
Grod  shall  call.^  Thus  prophecy  becomes  history — the  pro- 
mise is  fulfilled;  the  nations  are  to  be  blessed  through 
Christ,  and  the  everlasting  covenant  confirmed.'' 

"  Do  you  apply  the  words  of  Peter,  when  he  tells  the  peo- 
ple on  the  day  of  Pentecost  that  the  j^^omise  is  to  them  and 
to  their  children,  to  the  promise  contained  in  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

"I  certainly  do,  Theophilus;  for  if  you  examine  the  pas- 
sage closel}^,  you  will  find  that  the  outpouring  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  quoted  by  Peter  from  the  prophecy  of  Joel,  is  itself 
a  fulfilment  of  the  spiritual  promise  made  to  Abraham.  In 
proof  of  the  fact  that  Peter  so  understood  it,  we  find  him 
declaring  to  the  Jews,  as  a  reason  for  their  repenting  of 
their  sins,  '  Ye  are  the  children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the 
covenant  ivhich  God  made  with  our  fathers,  saying  unto 
Abraham,  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  of  the 
earth  be  blessed.'  "     Acts  iii.  25. 

"I  am  constrained  to  acknowledge,"  said  Theophilus, 
"that  there  is  a  plain  connection  between  the  Abrahamic 
covenant  and  the  gospel  dispensation,  yet  I  cannot  distinctly 
see  what  that  connection  is.  If  I  understand  your  position 
correctly,  the  Abrahamic  Church,  so  to  speak,  was  the  gos- 
pel Church  in  embryo.     Am  I  right  V 

"Not  quite,  Theophilus.  My  position  is,  that  the 
Church  established  in  the  house  of  Abraham  was  as  truly 
and  really  a  gospel  Church  as  that  which  existed  in  the 
house  of  Philemon,  to  which  Paul  refers,  Philemon  2.     I 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  393 

contend  that  Abraham  was  a  genuine  Christian,  as  I  have 
proved  Moses  was,  by  the  words  of  the  Apostle  Paul. 
Now  I  want  to  prove  this  proposition  so  clearly  that  you  can 
have  no  doubt  upon  the  subject.  Let  us  take  these  two  char- 
acters, Philemon  and  Abraham,  for  the  sake  of  illustration. 
"  How  was  Philemon  justified  in  the  sight  of  God  ?  The 
apostle  says  we  are  justified  b?/  faith  in  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  How  was  Abraham  justified  ?  The  apostle  says, 
^  He  believed  God,  and  it  was  counted  to  him  for  righteous- 
ness.^ But  did  Abraham  believe  in  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  ? 
The  apostle  tells  us  the  gospel  was  preached  to  him,  and  he 
believed  it.  Whether  all  the  particulars  were  made  known 
to  Abraham,  we  cannot  tell  -,  but  it  is  very  likely  they  were. 
The  prophets,  we  know,  described  the  manner  of  Christ's 
death,  and  even  declared  the  minute  details  of  his  cruci- 
fixion and  burial.  These  you  will  find  in  the  fifty-third 
chapter  of  Isaiah.  It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the 
great  truths  of  redemption  were  made  known  to  Abraham ; 
otherwise  it  is  folly  to  call  that  which  was  preached  to  him 
the  gospel.  Now,  what  was  required  of  Philemon  in  order 
to  prepare  him  for  heaven  ?  Holiness  of  life ;  for  in  this 
one  sentence  we  have  all  the  gospel  requirements  which  are 
of  a  spiritual  nature.  And  what  was  required  of  Abraham  ? 
We  are  told  in  the  seventeenth  chapter  of  Genesis :  '  I  am 
the  Almighty  God  :  icalh  hefore  me  and  be  tliou  perfect,'  or 
holy.  Now  where  is  the  difi"erence  ?  They  are  both  justi- 
fied by  faith;  both  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them;  both 
believe  it;  and  both  are  required  to  lead  a  new  life  of  holi- 
ness and  devotion  to  the  service  of  God.  The  only  possible 
difference  that  can  be  found  is,  that  Abraham  believed  in  a 
Picdeemer  yet  to  come,  and  Philemon  believed  in  a  Redeemer 
cdready  come.  The  object  of  faith  is  the  same :  they  were 
both  servants  of  God,  and  redeemed  by  the  blood  of  Jesus 
Christ." 

17* 


894  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR,  ^ 

''  I  must  admit  tlie  fact,  Mr.  Mason,  in  its  essential  char' 
acter :  the  Church  in  Abraham's  house  is  as  really  a  gospel 
Church  as  the  other/' 

''  Very  well ;  now  we  are  expressly  told  that  infants  of 
ei(/Jit  days  old  were  initiated  into  the  Abrahamic  Church. 
We  are  told  by  the  apostle  that  the  law  of  Moses  did  not 
o.nmil  the  covenant  with  Abraham;  and  he  informs  us  that 
the  Christian  dispensation  is  simply  a  development  of  the 
spiritual  nature  of  that  covenant :  does  it  not  follow,  then, 
that  those  who  were,  of  Divine  right,  parties  to  the  covenant, 
and  partakers  of  its  benefits,  are  still  recognized  as  such  if 
there  are  no  changes  in  the  conditions  of  membership  ?" 

"I  think  so,  Mr.  Mason,"  said  Theophilus,  ''but  the 
Baptists  tell  us  that  the  conditions  are  changed." 

''  Let  them  show  it,  then,  in  the  New  Testament,  and  I 
submit." 

"  Does  not  the  great  commission  specify  the  character  of 
those  who  are  entitled  to  membership  in  the  Church  ?" 

''  Let  us  examine  it,  and  we  shall  see  that  there  is  a  strik- 
ing likeness  existing  between  the  covenant  with  Abraham 
and  the  commission  to  the  apostles.  Our  Lord  Jesus  says 
to  his  disciples,  '  Go  ye,  therefore,  and  teach  all  nations, 
baptizing  them  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son, 
and  of  the  Holy  Grhost ;  teaching  them  to  observe  all  things 
whatsoever  I  have  commanded  you.'  All  nations  are  to  be 
favored  with  the  teaching  and  blessings  of  Christ;  and  the 
gospel  which  was  taught  to  Abraham  was,  '  In  thee  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.'  You  see,  then,  that  the 
recipients  of  grace  under  the  gospel  commission  are  precisely 
those  of  the  covenant  of  grace  made  with  Abraham ;  and 
the  disciples  and  their  successors  are  charged  with  the  duty 
of  proclaiming  the  gospel  to  all  the  families  and  kindreds 
of  the  earth.  Now,  if  infant  children  are  recognized  as 
being  in   covenant  relation  to  God  in  that  dispensation  in 


THE  MAJESTY  OP  TRUTH.  395 

• 

which  the  promise  is  made  that  all  nations  shall  be  blessed, 
why  should  infants  be  excluded  from  covenant  relation  to 
(xod  in  that  dispensation  in  which  all  nations  are  being  blessed 
by  the  truths  of  the  gospel  ?  It  is  positively  certain  that 
they  were  parties  to  the  covenant  before  our  Saviour  came ; 
how  does  it  happen  that  our  blessed  Lord  exjyeh  these  little 
ones  from  his  Church,  and  refuses  to  give  them  any  part  or 
lot  in  it?'' 

''The  Baptists  say,  that  only  those  who  can  be  taught 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  the  Church,  Mr.  Mason,  and  they 
understand  the  commission  as  excluding  infants  because 
they  cannot  be  taught.'' 

"  By  examining  your  Greek  Testament,  you  will  see,  The- 
ophilus,  that  there  are  two  words  which  are  rendered  teach 
in  our  translation.  The  command  is  to  disciple  all  nations, 
and  then  to  teach  them.  This  no  one  can  deny  who  under- 
stands the  import  of  the  Grreek  terms.  Now,  hoiu  long  after 
they  are  made  disciples  before  they  must  be  taught,  is  not 
stated.  But  I  will  show  you  an  analogous  passage  which 
has  reference  to  Abraham  and  his  house.  In  the  eighteenth 
chapter  of  Genesis  you  will  find  an  account  of  the  conversa- 
tion between  the  angel  of  the  Lord  and  Abraham.  After 
they  had  left  his  tent  the  Lord  said,  '  Shall  I  hide  from 
Abraham  that  thing  which  I  do  ;  seeing  that  Abraham  shall 
surely  become  a  great  and  mighty  nation,  and  cdl  the  nations 
of  the  earth  shall  be  blessed  in  him  ?  For  I  know  him,  that 
he  loill  conijuand  his  children,  and  his  household  after  him, 
and  they  shall  keep  the  ivay  of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and 
judgment;  that  the  Lord  may  bring  upon  Abraham  that 
which  he  hath  spoken  of  him.'  Abraham  was  under  obliga- 
tion to  teach  his  children,  and  so  soon  as  they  were  able  to 
understand,  doubtless  he  did  do  so.  He  explained  to  them 
the  nature  of  that  covenant  into  which  they  had  been  initi- 
ated by  circumcision  in  their  infancy.     He  enforced  upon 


396  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

them  the  necessity  of  perfect  obedience  to  Grod,  that  they 
might  '  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord/  Now  this  is  the  very 
position  which  the  Christian  father  occupies  under  the  gos- 
pel dispensation.  His  children  are  recognized  as  the  sub- 
jects of  grace  by  baptism  in  infancy,  and  when  they  become 
large  enough  to  understand  spiritual  things,  every  truly  pious 
parent  will  '  command  his  children,  and  his  household  after 
him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord.'  " 

^'-  But  the  Baptists  say,  Mr.  Mason,  that  by  haptism  we 
are  brought  under  obligation  to  obey  the  whole  gospel ;  and 
as  infants  cannot  take  this  obligation,  they  ought  not  to  be 
baptized." 

'^I  know  they  do,  Theophilus,  and  their  dogmatism  in 
this  respect  is  as  shallow  as  we  have  found  it  in  others.  The 
Apostle  Paul  says  in  the  fifth  chapter  of  his  letter  to  the 
Galatians,  '  I  testify  again  to  every  man  that  is  circumcised, 
that  he  is  a  debtor  to  do  the  whole  laio.'  Now,  when  did 
they  assume  this  debt  ?  In  their  infancy,  at  eight  days  old  ] 
and  this  they  did  by  God's  command;  who  will  affirm,  then, 
that  all  the  obligations  which  can  be  implied  in  baptism 
may  not  be  taken  at  the  same  age  V 

"  The  cases  are  parallel,  Mr.  Mason,  There  is  nothing  in 
that  objection.  But  they  say,  that  if  circumcision  has  given 
place  to  baptism,  you  ought  to  baptize  male  children  only, 
as  those  alone  were  circumcised,  or  else  show  your  authority 
for  baptizing  both  sexes.'' 

"  Very  well,  Theophilus,  I  can  do  that  very  thing.  I  have 
already  quoted  the  apostle's  remark  upon  this  point,  but  I 
will  repeat  it.  '  There  is  neither  Jeiv  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female^ 
for  ye  are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  And  if  ye  be  Christ's, 
then  are  ye  Abraham's  seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  pro- 
mise.' Gal.  iii.  28,  29.  Here  the  apostle  declares  that 
there  are  to  be  no  distinctions  hereafter,  no  peculiar -prhi- 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  397 

leges  to  the  Jew  denied  to  the  Greek ;  the  free  occupy  the 
same  position  spiritually,  and  in  Church  privileges,  with  the 
bond ;  and  the  male  shall  have  none  which  are  denied  to  the 
female;  but  all  shall  be  one  in  Christ,  and  thereby  become 
heirs  of  Abraham  alike.      Would  you  require  stronger  proof  V 

"  No,  sir,  the  passage  meets  the  case,  and  gives  the  law, 
plainly  enough.  Still,  the  Baptists  argue  further,  that  the 
apostles  did  not  baptize  infants,  because  we  have  no  mention 
made  of  such  baptisms  in  the  New  Testament.  How  do 
you  answer  that  objection,  Mr.  Mason  ?" 

"  I  answer  it  by  affirming  that  the  New  Testament  does 
inform  us  of  various  baptisms  in  which  infants  were  in- 
cluded among  the  subjects.  There  is  a  very  general  fallacy 
in  Baptist  books  upon  this  subject.  They  argue  that  because 
a  number  of  adults  are  mentioned  as  receiving  baptism,  and 
no  case  of  an  infant  baptized  alone  and  mentioned  by  name 
is  to  be  found,  therefore  no  infants  were  baptized  !  This 
sort  of  logic  would  make  a  strange  bundle  of  contradictions 
in  the  Bible.  For  instance,  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  it  is 
said  that  three  thousand  believed  and  were  baptized.  Were 
these  all  men?  It  is  not  said  that  there  was  a  single  ivoman 
among  them.  Again,  in  the  fourth  chapter  of  Acts  we  are 
told  that  the  ^  number  of  the  men  was  about  five  thousand' 
who  believed.  Were  there  no  women  among  them  ?  If  I 
remember  correctly,  the  first  case  of  the  baptism  of  a  woman, 
which  is  explicitly  declared,  is  that  of  the  Samaritan  women 
in  the  eighth  of  Acts.  Are  we  to  conclude,  therefore,  that 
no  women  embraced  the  gospel  and  were  baptized  before 
Philip  preached  in  Samaria  ?  Or  are  we  to  understand  that 
the  men  outnumbered  the  women  in  the  Apostolic  Church, 
simply  because  they  are  mentioned  more  frequently,  and 
their  conversions  specified  oftener?  No  one  will  contend 
for  such  a  consequence  of  an  incorrect  theory,  as  wearing 
the  shadow  of  truth. 


398  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;     OR, 

^'Tlie  reason  wliy  tlie  baptism  of  adults  is  mentioned  so 
frequently  in  the  New  Testament  is  very  readily  given.  If 
the  apostles  could  have  singled  out  from  the  families  around 
them  a  hundred  thousand  infants^  and  baptized  them,  there 
would  have  been  no  immediate  gain  to  the  Church  of  con- 
verted persons ;  and  it  is  the  design  of  the  inspired  writer 
to  show  us  what  progress  the  gospel  made  in  those  days. 
Because  infants  are  not  mentioned  by  name,  we  are  no  more 
authorized  to  say  that  there  were  none  baptized,  than  we  are 
warranted  in  affirming  that  there  were  no  women  in  the 
Church  at  Jerusalem,  because  none  are  said  to  have  been 
baptized  there.  But  when  we  find  it  stated  that  the  fami- 
lies of  certain  persons  were  baptized,  what  right  has  any  one 
to  say  that  there  were  no  infants  in  those  families  ? 

^'Let  us  take  the  case  of  the  jailer  at  Philippi.  We  are 
told  that  he  was  baptized  and  all  his  family.  Now,  we  are 
not  informed  how  many  there  were,  nor  whether  any  of  his 
children  were  infants,  nor  indeed  are  we  informed  whether 
this  jailer's  wife  was  living  or  not.  She  is  not  mentioned ; 
she  may  have  been  dead,  or  she  may  have  been  living, 
with  a  babe  in  her  arms — who  can  tell  ?  We  are  told  that 
he  believed  with  all  his  house,  and  therefore  the  Baptists 
contend  that  all  the  family  must  have  been  large  enough  to 
profess  faith  themselves.  But  this  is  by  no  means  a  conse- 
quence. If  a  man  has  two  children  who  are  converted  mem- 
bers of  a  Church,  and  another  who  is  but  a  month  old,  if  he 
and  his  wife  are  pious  Christians,  is  not  his  a  Christian  fam- 
ily ?  Does  the  presence  of  that  unoffending  babe  heathenize 
his  household  ?  And  if  such  a  family  as  this  were  con- 
verted at  or  about  the  same  time,  would  not  even  our  Bap- 
tist friends  say  that  the  whole  family  had  embraced  religion  ? 
If  we  are  to  take  Baptist  assumptions,  we  must  believe  that 
there  were  no  children  in  the  family  of  the  Philippian 
jailer,  none  in  that  of  Lydia,  none  in  that  of  Philemon, 


THE  MAJESTY  OF  TRUTH.         399 

none  in  that  of  Stephanas,  none  in  the  families  of  Priscilla, 
and  Aquihi,  and  Nymphas,  for  all  these  families  were  bap- 
tized, and  some  of  them  are  said  to  have  churches  in  their 
households.  Now  this  requires  too  much  at  our  hands. 
Doubtless  you  might  select  half  a  dozen  families  in  Mary- 
ville  in  which  there  are  no  infant  children ;  but  does  any  one 
believe  that  if  you  commence  at  any  given  point,  and  take 
the  first  six  families  as  they  come,  that  you  will  not  find  a 
solitary  infant  among  them  all  ? 

''But  let  us  take  a  closer  view  of  this  point.  Who  were 
these  apostles,  and  what  were  their  constructions  of  the  gos- 
pel commission  ?  The?/  iijcre  Jews,  hy  hirth,  and  we  have 
positive  testimony  that  at  least  one  of  them,  and  he  the  most 
prominent  of  the  twelve,  restricted  the  gospel  commission 
to  the  Jews  only,  and  practiced  accordingly,  until  convinced 
of  his  error  by  a  revelation  from  heaven.  This  is  an  import- 
ant fact.  Peter  alludes  in  his  sermons  to  the  Abrahamic 
covenant,  speaks  of  the  Abrahamic  promise,  declares  it  is 
for  the  Jews  and  their  children,  commands  them  to  be  bap- 
tized in  the  name  of  Jesus,  and  they  obey.  Kemember 
that  the  Jews  were  accustomed  to  bring  their  infant  children 
with  them  to  the  solemn  assemblies  of  the  Lord,  that  they 
circumcised  these  infants,  and  thus  placed  them  in  covenant 
with  God ;  and  when  the  blessings  of  this  covenant  of  grace 
are  to  be  realized,  can  any  one  doubt  whether  they  would 
Lave  brought  their  children  with  them  to  be  baptized? 

"Let  us  examine  the  words  of  Peter  again  for  a  short 
time.  '  Repent  and  be  baptized  every  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jesus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  ye 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost ;  for  (this  is  the  rea- 
son why  they  may  be  baptized)  the  promise  is  unto  you,  and 
to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  are  afar  ofi".'  Now,  whatever 
pro7nise  it  was,  it  is  certain  the  children  were  interested  in 
it,  and  this  interest  in  the  promise  is  given  as  the  reason 


40P  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;    OR, 

why  they  should  repent  and  be  baptized.  If  we  suppose 
Peter  to  allude  to  the  passage  which  he  had  before  quoted 
from  Joel,  which  declared  that  the  Spirit  should  be  poured 
out  upon  all  flesh,  as  we  have  already  seen,  this  prophecy 
itself  is  a  part  of  the  promise  in  the  Abrahamic  covenant :  '/ 
icill  he  a  God  to  tliee  and  thy  seed.^  But  let  us  turn  to  this 
second  chapter  of  Joel,  and  ascertain  who  the  parties  were 
of  whom  the  prophet  spoke.  ^  Blow  the  trumpet  in  Zion,' 
says  Joel,  '  sanctify  a  fast,  call  a  solemn  assemhli/  ;  gather  the 
people,  sanctify  the  congregation,  assemble  the  elders, 
gather  the  children,  and  those  that  such  the  breasts;  let  the 
bridegroom  go  forth  of  his  chamber,  and  the  bride  out  of 
her  closet;  let  the  priests,  the  ministers  of  the  Lord,  weep 
between  the  porch  and  the  altar,  and  let  them  say.  Spare 
thy  people,  0  Lord,  and  give  not  thine  heritage  to  reproach, 
that  the  heathen  should  rule  over  them  :  wherefore  should 
the  heathen  say  among  the  people.  Where  is  their  Grod  ?' 
Here  the  infants  who  suck  the  breasts  arc  declared  to  be  a 
part  of  the  heritage  of  God,  and  they  are  required  to  be 
brought  to  this  solemn  assembly.  A  Baptist  objector  would 
say.  What  is  the  use  of  bringing  unconscious  babes  into  the 
Lord's  house  on  such  an  occasion  ?  the?/  cannot  fast,  they  can- 
not be  sanctified,  they  cannot  ^ray  and  sujypUcate  God;  let 
them  be  left  at  home,  and  let  the  grown  'peoi-)le  come.  But 
the  mind  of  God  is  diiferent  from  theirs  :  those  young  babes 
were  deeply  interested  in  this  solemn  assembly,  although 
they  could  know  nothing  of  it  tlien  ;  their  temporal  as  well 
as  spiritual  welfare  in  the  future  was  involved  in  these  trans- 
actions, and  therefore  their  presence  was  required.  On  a 
memorable  occasion,  Moses  assembled  all  Israel,  and  ad- 
dressed them  as  follows  :  ^  Ye  stand  this  day,  all  of  you, 
before  the  Lord  your  God ;  your  captains  of  your  tribes, 
your  elders  and  your  officers,  with  all  the  men  of  Israel, 
your  little  ones,  your  wives,  and  thy  stranger  that  is  in  thy 


THE     MAJESTY    OF    TRUTH.  401 

ca;np,  from  the  licwer  of  thy  wood  unto  the  drawer  of  thy 
water:  that  thou  should eM  entcj'  into  covenant  loith  the  Lord 
thy  God,  and  into  his  oath,  which  the  Lord  thy  God  inaketh 
with  thee  this  day :  that  he  tnay  establish  thee  to-day  for  a 
•people  unto  himself,  and  that  he  may  he  unto  thee  a  God,  as 
he  hath  said  unto  thee,  and  as  he  hath  sicorn  unto  thy  fath- 
ers, to  Abraham,  to  Isaac,  and  to  Jacob.'  Deut.  ^xix.  10— 
13.  The  Baptists  will  say  these  Hittle  ones'  had  nothing  to 
do  with  that  covenant.  How  could  those  unconscious  babes 
profess  faith  in  the  Lord  of  hosts  ?  How  could  they  enter 
into  covenant  with  God?  Yet  the  Bible  says  they  2cere 
there,  and  it  includes  them  among  the  covenant-people  of 
the  Lord. 

"I  might  cite  you  many  other  proofs,  but  these  are 
enough.  I  have  proved  that  infants  were  interested  in  the 
spiritual  promises  of  the  Abrahamic  covenant,  and  that  they 
were  parties  to  those  solemn  engagements  in  which  the  peo- 
ple of  Israel  made  public  profession  of  faith  in  the  Lord 
their  God.  Knowing  these  facts,  then,  being  accustomed  to 
see  infants  of  eight  days  old  receive  the  sign  and  seal  of  the 
first  covenant,  is  it  not  reasonable  to  suppose  that  the  apos- 
tles of  our  Lord  would  naturally  expect  that  the  infants  of 
Christian  parents  would  be  included  among  the  subjects  of 
baptism,  and  thus  receive  the  sign  and  seal  of  the  neiv  cove- 
nant ?  In  other  words,  as  infants  were  known  to  be  heirs  of 
the  promise  under  the  old  dispensation,  and  received  the 
seal  in  evidence  thereof,  would  they  not  regard  them  as  heirs 
of  the  promise  still,  and  entitled  to  the  newly-instituted 
seal  ?  "We  know  that  those  Jews  who  became  Christians 
held  on  to  circumcision  for  some  time,  until  a  conference  of 
elders  and  apostles  decided  against  them,  as  we  find  it  stated 
in  the  fifteenth  chapter  of  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles.  They 
practiced  circumcision  '  after  the  manner  of  Moses  /  that  is, 
at  eight  days  old ;  and  at  the  same  time  they  were  members 


402  THEOPHILUS     WALTON;    OR, 

of  the  Christian  Church,  and  were  baptized.  Now,  do  you 
suppose  that  they  gave  the  seal  of  the  old  covenant  to  their 
infant  children,  and  omitted  the  seal  of  the  new  ?  Did  they 
make  their  children  Jews,  whilst  they  themselves  were 
Christians?  No  such  charge  is  preferred  against  them. 
They  hajptized  the  very  persons  whom  they  circumcised,  and 
as  they  contended  for  the  circumcision  as  Moses  commanded- 
it,  the  conclusion  is  unavoidable  that  they  administered  the 
Christian  ordinance  at  the  same  age.  The  apostles  and 
elders  decided  against  circumcision,  as  imposing  a  yoke  too 
heavy  for  the  Gentiles  to  bear,  but  the?/  did  not  forbid  the 
baj^tism  of  those  infants  to  ichoni  circumcision  icas  adminis- 
tered. This  was  the  time  for  the  clear,  unmistakable  con- 
demnation of  Pedobaptism,  if  there  had  been  a  command  to  ex- 
clude infants  from  the  Christian  Church.  But  we  find  nothing 
of  it ;  not  a  word  against  giving  baptism  to  all  those  whom 
these  Jewish  Christians  would  have  circumcised  ;  and  I  con- 
tend that,  without  such  an  explicit  command,  the  practice 
of  baptizing  infants  would  have  been  a  necessary  conse- 
quence. We  see  plainly  that  the  subjects  of  the  old  dispen- 
sation were  considered  the  subjects  of  the  new ;  the  circum- 
cision of  these  persons  is  forbidden,  their  bcqjtism  is  not.  We 
are,  therefore,  forced  to  the  conclusion  that  the  repeal  of  the 
old  rite,  as  a  sign  and  seal,  does  not  alter  or  render  invalid 
the  claim  of  infant  children  to  the  neia  rite,  as  a  sign,  seal, 
and  pledge  of  God's  redeeming  grace. 

^•'  When  we  read,  then,  of  household  baptisms,  we  are  un- 
der no  necessity  to  prove  that  infants  were  included  in  them. 
The  presumption  is  that  they  were.  The  few  instances  men- 
tioned of  such  baptisms  are,  doubtless,  but  a  tithe  of  the 
whole — we  know  not  how  many  hundreds  of  families  were 
baptized ;  and  unless  the  Baptists  are  willing  to  affirm  that 
there  were  no  infants  alive  in  those  daj-s,  we  are  constrained 
to  believe  that  the  ^  little  ones'  were  as  certainly  placed  in 


THE     MAJESTY     OP     TRUTH.  403 

covenant  relation  to  God,  as  they  were  in  the  days  of  Moses 
and  of  Joel.  They  were  just  as  competent  in  the  times  of 
the  apostles  to  become  parties  to  a  public  profession  of  the 
covenant  of  grace,  as  they  were  to  assume  the  duties  and 
incur  the  oblio'ations  resultino-  from  circumcision. 

"  But  let  us  see  if  the  New  Testament  baptisms  uphold 
the  practice  of  Baptists  in  these  days.  The  question  is  not 
whether  a  Jew  or  a  heathen,  being  converted  to  Christianity 
— the  former  from  his  mistaken  views  of  the  plan  of  redemp- 
tion, the  latter  from  the  service  of  idol-gods — should  be 
baptized  on  profession  of  his  faith  in  Christ.  This  is  admit- 
ted by  all  parties.  Yet  the  Baptists  cite  these  cases  in  the 
New  Testament  as  demonstrative  evidence  in  their  favor ! 
But  the  evidence  which  they  require  to  sustain  their  prac- 
tice and  theory  is  of  a  very  different  character.  The  ques- 
tion is.  Did  the  New  Testament  Christians  delay  the  haptism 
of  their  children  until  they  were  old  enough  to  profess  the  reli- 
gion of  Jesus  Christ?  No  one  will  deny  that  this  is  the 
practice  of  the  Baptist  Church.  Now  let  them  find  one  soli- 
tary example  of  such  a  baptism  in  the  Scriptures,  and  we 
will  give  them  credit  for  it,  and  admit  that  it  is  against  us. 
But  where  is  such  a  baptism  recorded  ?  AVhere  do  we  hear 
of  a  daughter  of  the  Christian  Chloe,  or  Philemon,  or  Ste- 
phanas, being  baptized  at  fifteen  or  sixteen  years  of  age  ? 
Where  do  ice  ever  hear  of  a  household  haptism,  in  lohich  one 
part  of  the  household  is  baptized  at  one  time,  and  the  remain- 
der at  another  ?  Where  do  we  hear  a  Christian  parent  ex- 
horted to  use  his  efforts  to  convert  his  children  from  the 
state  of  heathendom,  that  they  may  be  admitted  by  baptism 
into  the  Christian  Church  ?  Not  one  of  these  examples  can 
be  found.  No  delay  of  baptism  is  once  intimated  as  exist- 
ing in  Christian  families )  not  a  solitary  case  of  adult  bap- 
tism is  mentioned,  where  the  party  baptized  was  of  Christian 
parents  !    What  answer  can  Baptists  make  to  this  argument  ? 


404  THEOPIIILTJS    WALTON;     OR 

Will  tliey  say  that  there  was  not  time  for  these  baptisms  to 
occur  ?  We  answer  that  the  book  called  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles contains  historical  events  reaching  from  A.  D.  33  to  A.  D. 
63,  a  period  of  thirty  years  at  least.  Infant  children  who 
were  born  after  the  day  of  Pentecost,  or  ten  or  fifteen  years 
subsequent,  would  have  grown  to  manhood  and  womanhood' 
before  that  book  was  written.  If  any  such,  the  adult  chil- 
dren of  Christian  parents,  were  baptized,  why  have  we  no 
record  of  it  ?  Baptists  call  loudly  upon  us  to  produce  an 
example  of  oiu^  baptism  in  the  Scriptures ;  we  now  call  for 
an  example  of  theirs;  not  the  baptism  of  an  adult  whose 
parents  were  Jews  or  heathens,  but  the  baptism  of  an  adult 
whose  parents  were  Christians.  As  I  have  said,  the  New 
Testament  adult  baptisms  sustain  our  practice  as  well  as 
theirs.  Any  Pedobaptist  missionary  in  a  foreign  land  would 
baptize  a  Lydia,  a  Philippian  jailer,  a  Saul  of  Tarsus,  and 
he  would  baptize,  as  did  Paul,  the  whole  household  of  a  Ste- 
phanas. But  Wv^-  require  them  to  show  that  children  were 
permitted  to  grow  up  to  adult  age,  surrounded  by  Christian 
parents  and  attendants  upon  the  Christian  ministry,  without 
being  baptized.  If  they  cannot  do  this,  they  cannot  sustain 
their  practice,  and  they  utter  their  own  condemnation  when 
they  require  scriptural  examples,  in  which  the  character  of  the 
subjects  is  distinctly  delineated.  The  apostles  baptized  adult 
converts  who  had  been  Jews  or  heathens  ]  the  Baptists  have 
few  opportunities  to  make  converts  from  either  class.  Their 
rule  is  to  baptize  the  adult  children  of  Christians ;  let  them 
show  that  this  was  the  apostolic  rule,  or  abandon  the  practice. 
If  they  are  allowed  to  make  inferences,  without  a  shadow  of 
testimony  to  sustain  them,  they  must  allow  us  to  make  a 
plain  argument,  founded  upon  the  word  of  Grod,  from  which 
no  reasonable  inference  can  thrust  the  claims  of  infant  chil- 
dren to  be  recognized  as  parties  to  that  covenant,  in  pursu- 
ance of  which  we  have  been  redeemed  from  the  penalty  of 


THE     MAJESTY     OF     TRUTH.  405 

tlie  law,  and  are  made  candidates  for  tlie  election  of  grace 
unto  eternal  life.  If  tliey  tell  us  that  adults  only  were  bap- 
tized on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  when  the  new  dispensation 
was  opened  in  its  fulness  and  grandeur,  we  may  admit  the 
fact,  but,  in  reply,  we  point  them  to  the  first  records  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  show  them  that  although  the  required  age  of 
the  circumcised  person  was  only  eight  dai/s,  yet  the  first  per- 
son who  received  it  was  ninety-nine  years  old,  and  the  sec- 
ond thirteen  years  old.  Moreover,  we  require  them  to  show 
that  there  were  infants  in  the  family  of  Abraliam  at  this  time. 
If  this  cannot  be  done,  it  follows,  according  to  the  views  of 
the  Baptists,  that  the  rite  was  not  properly  administered. 

^'  But  to  sum  up  the  whole  matter  in  a  few  words.  Par- 
ents must  become  Christians  before  their  children  could  be 
baptized.  Therefore  the  first  records  of  the  Church  describe 
adult  baptisms.  For  the  same  reason,  the  first  records  of 
the  Abrahamic  covenant  inform  us  of  adult  circumcision. 
But  as  infant  Church -membership  was  recognized  in  the 
Abrahamic  Church,  we  contend  that  it  was  recognized  in  the 
Christian  Church,  because  the  apostles  and  the  prophets  are 
the  foundation  of  which  Christ  is  the  corner-stone ;  and  be- 
cause these  very  apostles  claimed  to  be  the  children  of  Abra- 
ham, and  point  to  the  covenant  made  with  him,  as  the  gra- 
cious source  of  all  those  blessings  which  spring  from  the 
manifestation  of  God  in  the  flesh.  Our  infant  children, 
then,  are  not  cast  out  of  the  fold  of  Christ  to  lie  at  the 
mercy  of  the  wolf,  or  to  hang  upon  the  uncovenanted  mercy 
of  God.  Dying  in  infancy,  that  gracious  Spirit  whose  puri- 
fying power  is  so  beautifully  symbolized  in  water  baptism, 
fits  them  for  the  heavenly  inheritance.  And  here  let  me 
ask,  in  the  words  of  the  Rev.  Robert  Hall,  whose  testi- 
mony against  his  Baptist  brethren  you  heard  quoted  with  so 
much  eff'ect  last  Saturday  :  ^  Did  it  ever  enter  the  conce/ption 
of  any  hut  Bo.ptists  that  a  right  to  the  sign  coidd  he  sepa- 


406  THEOPHILUS    WALTON;     OR, 

7XLf.ed  from  the  thing  signified  T  I  answer,  No,  honest  sir,  no 
other  class  of  people  will  contend  that  certain  persons  may 
be  and  are  truly  sanctified  by  God's  Spirit,  and  yet  they  are 
not  entitled  to  receive  the  sign  of  that  grace.  The  Baptists 
alone  are  inconsistent  enough  to  acknowledge  that  an  infant 
child  may  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  while  at  the 
same  time  they  deny  to  that  child  any  place,  part,  or  lot  in 
the  Church  of  Christ.  But  ice  say,  if  they  actually  receive 
the  grace  signified  in  baptism — as  in  the  case  of  those  dying 
in  infancy  none  will  question — they  are  entitled  to  the  &ign 
of  that  grace,  and  thus  will  we  do  if  God  permit,  until  the 
Father  in  heaven  shall  tell  us  plainly  that  little  children 
must  not  be  consecrated  to  him.  Until  Christ  shall  tell  us, 
Forbid  them  to  come  unto  me,  we  shall  hold  on  to  his  an- 
cient command,  and  forhid  them  not. 

''It  will  be  impossible  to  examine  all  the  arguments  upon 
this  subject,  Theophilus,  in  one  short  evening.  If  you  have 
any  scruples  still  against  the  baptism  of  infants,  I  will  take 
pleasure  in  affording  you  further  assistance  if  it  is  in  my 
power." 

''  I  acknowledge,  Mr.  Mason, '^  replied  Theophilus,  ''  that 
I  have  been  at  fault  hitherto  in  the  formation  of  my  reli- 
gious opinions.  I  examined  too  superficially  the  grounds  of 
the  doctrines  to  which  I  adhered.  I  again  tender  to  you  my 
thanks  for  your  valuable  aid  during  these  meetings.  I 
began  at  heart  an  immersionist.  I  am  now  convinced  not 
only  of  the  propriety  of  effusion  or  pouring  as  the  scrip- 
tural mode,  but  that  infants  have  a  right,  by  special  warrant 
from  God,  to  membership  in  the  Church.  If  others  have 
been  as  greatly  blessed  by  the  arguments  which  you  have 
offered,  I  feel  persuaded  that  we  shall  henceforth  be  wiser 
and  hetter  men/' 


THE  MAJESTY  OP  TRUTH.         407 


CHAPTER   XX 


THE    RETROSPECT. 


The  period  througli  wliicli  we  liave  passed  lias  been  an 
eventful  one.  The  firmness  of  our  hero  has  been  severely 
tried;  and  the  affection  of  the  fair  being  to  whom  he  was 
betrothed,  through  all  his  trials  has  supported* him  in  his 
resolution  to  think  and  act  for  himself.  Now  that  this  por- 
tion of  our  narrative  draws  to  a  close,  we  need  give  only  a 
brief  summary  of  the  events  which  immediately  followed 
the  discussion  which  we  have  given  in  the  preceding  pages. 

Mr.  Mason,  with  his  usual  diligence  and  zeal,  devoted 
himself  to  his  pulpit  and  pastoral  labors.  He  seemed  to 
have  no  desire  to  rejoice  over  a  fallen  foe.  To  those  who 
differed  with  him  he  was  kind  and  courteous ;  and  to  the 
numerous  petty  annoyances  which  bigotry  prompted  as  an 
offset  to  his  arguments,  he  paid  little  or  no  attention.  Be- 
loved by  his  congregation,  and  respected  by  the  intelligent 
and  good  of  all  parties,  his  subsequent  labors  were  eminently 
blessed  of  Grod. 

Mr.  Ellis  did  not  recover  his  wonted  animation  and 
cheerfulness,  yet  he  seldom  indulged  in  a  remark  concerning 
the  recent  debate  in  a  promiscuous  assemblage.  He  had 
learned  to  be  cautious,  and  hereafter  he  kept  his  own  coun- 
sel. Far  from  desiring  to  abandon  the  contest,  however,  he 
was  diligently  engaged  in  assisting  Mr.  Battle  in  preparing 
for   another   and    more  desperate  encounter.      They  deter- 


408  THEOPHILUS     WALTON. 

mined  to  ^^  carry  tlie  war  into  Africa;"  and  if  a  vulnerable 
spot  could  be  found  in  the  body  of  Methodism,  tliey  were 
resolved  to  find  it. 

Mary  Ellis,  after  experiencing  the  displeasure  of  ber 
father,  and  finding  that  the  peace  of  the  family  depended 
upon  her  removal  from  the  parental  roof,  was  kindly  received 
by  her  uncle,  Mr.  Riley,  at  whose  house  she  enjoyed  the 
hospitality  denied  to  her  at  home.  There,  too,  Theophilus 
spent  many  pleasant  hours  in  forming  plans  for  their  future 
comfort. 

On  the  following  Sabbath  Theophilus  was  baptized  by 
Mr.  Mason,  according  to  the  primitive,  apostolical  mode ;  and 
as  the  crystal  stream  descended  upon  his  head,  he  conse- 
crated himself  anew  to  the  service  of  God.  He  had 
renounced  the  "  vain  pomp  and  glory  of  the  world,''  and 
henceforth  he  determined  to  apply  himself  with  renewed 
diligence  to  learn  the  will  of  the  gracious  Redeemer. 

We  must  here,  for  a  season,  take  leave  of  him.  If  we 
should  again  claim  the  indulgence  of  a  generous  public,  we 
shall  devote  our  attention  to  the  subject  of  Church  Govern- 
ment. A  defence  of  our  fathers  and  a  vindication  of  the 
policy  of  Methodism  are  due  to  ourselves.  Although  these 
have  been  given  to  the  world  by  able  pens,  our  opponents 
seek  to  gain  an  advantage  by  changing  the  manner  of  attack. 
To  repel  each  new  assault  is  at  once  a  duty  and  a  pleasure 


THE   END. 


